Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks

by liz (Monsignor)
on Mar 21, 2004 at 22:27 UTC ( #338521=perlmeditation: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Sometimes you feel like you need a slap to the head.

Yesterday was such a day when I finally figured out that a strange phenomenon, which has been discussed at one Perl Mongers meeting, as well as in a BOF on a Perl Workshop, is actually caused by a very bad benchmark. Lies and Damn Lies, indeed.

The phenomenon was that a benchmark showed that it was faster to do:

my $self = shift; my %param = @_;
rather than:
my ($self,%param) = @_;
This seems counter-intuitive, but the benchmark* was repeatable and showed that using a shift and a seperate assignment of the hash was almost three times as fast as doing in one list assignment. Just to make sure, I ran the benchmark with both 5.8.3 and 5.6.2. The benchmark and the result:
use Benchmark qw(cmpthese); cmpthese( -2,{ list => sub { my ($self,%param) = @_ }, shiftit => sub { my $self = shift; my %param = @_ }, } ); __END__ 5.8.3 Rate list shiftit list 78392/s -- -73% shiftit 292680/s 273% -- 5.6.2 Rate list shiftit list 94936/s -- -68% shiftit 297717/s 214% --

While preparing a some articles about micro-optimizations for Perl Monks, I decided to test this some more. Because I suddenly realised that I was testing this without parameters actually being passed. So I figured I'd do a run with parameters actually being passed. And everything changed. Observe:

sub list { my ($self,%param) = @_ } sub shiftit { my $self = shift; my %param = @_ } cmpthese( -2,{ list => sub { list( qw(foo bar baz) ) }, shiftit => sub { shiftit( qw(foo bar baz) ) }, } ); __END__ 5.8.3 Rate shiftit list shiftit 70621/s -- -11% list 79125/s 12% -- 5.6.2 Rate shiftit list shiftit 89341/s -- -10% list 98866/s 11% --
Huh? What's this? So doing it in one list assignment apparently is more efficient if you pass enough parameters to the subroutine. Hmmm... but what if we don't have parameters for the hash assignment. Surely then it would be faster to use the approach using shift()? Nope.
cmpthese( -2,{ list => sub { list( qw(foo) ) }, shiftit => sub { shiftit( qw(foo) ) }, } ); __END__ 5.8.3 Rate shiftit list shiftit 164545/s -- -19% list 204158/s 24% -- 5.6.2 Rate shiftit list shiftit 179408/s -- -12% list 203990/s 14% --
The list assignment was still more efficient. Huh? Had I been testing wrong. Ok, surely without any parameters passed, it would be faster to use shift()? Again, nope!
cmpthese( -2,{ list => sub { list() }, shiftit => sub { shiftit() }, } ); __END__ 5.8.3 Rate shiftit list shiftit 217350/s -- -12% list 247334/s 14% -- 5.6.2 Rate shiftit list shiftit 212031/s -- -14% list 246447/s 16% --
So what was the difference between my original benchmark and this one, apart from the overhead of calling an extra subroutine for each iteration? What was I missing?

The thing I was missing was in this little piece of documentation in perlsub:
To call subroutines: NAME(LIST); # & is optional with parentheses. NAME LIST; # Parentheses optional if predeclared/import +ed. &NAME(LIST); # Circumvent prototypes. &NAME; # Makes current @_ visible to called subrout +ine.
and indeed, if I changed the call from foo() to &foo, the following benchmark came about:
cmpthese( -2,{ list => sub { &list }, shiftit => sub { &shiftit }, } ); __END__ 5.8.3 Rate list shiftit list 126315/s -- -62% shiftit 333577/s 164% -- 5.6.2 Rate list shiftit list 135814/s -- -61% shiftit 343986/s 153% --
And indeed, that's a lot closer to the original benchmark.

What further conclusions can be drawn from this? Not sure, I guess I'll leave that as an excercise to the reader. ;-)

This just goes to show that you should always check, doublecheck and triplecheck your benchmarks.

Liz

*Please note that benchmarks can be off by 5 to 10% between runs. I've run the each benchmark multiple times, but some of them were run while running on battery power, and others were run when my iBook was plugged in. Within one benchmark, I always had the situation consistent, so the results between 5.6.2 and 5.8.3 of a benchmark can be compared (keeping in mind the 5 - 10% uncertainty for each run, of course).

Comment on Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks
Select or Download Code
Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks
by ysth (Canon) on Mar 21, 2004 at 23:59 UTC
    I'm not sure what your final point is? Doing this:
    cmpthese( -2,{ list => sub { &list }, shiftit => sub { &shiftit }, } );
    seems just plain broken, and I wouldn't have been surprised if it even made Benchmark roll over and die. You shouldn't be making any assumptions about what is in @_ in your outer sub {}, much less modifiying it.

    Trying this:

    use Benchmark 'cmpthese'; cmpthese(1, { tryit => sub { $save = \@_ }}); use Data::Dumper; $Data::Dumper::Deparse = 1; print Dumper $save; __END__ $VAR1 = [ 1, sub { $save = \@_; } ];
    shows that in fact, cmpthese's parameters are still in @_, and doing:
    cmpthese 3, { tryit => sub { push @save, [@_]; shift } }; print Dumper \@save; $VAR1 = [ [ 3, sub { push @save, [@_]; shift @_; } ], [ $VAR1->[0][1] ], [] ];
    shows that your shift has blown them away after the first 2 iterations.

      The final example isn't a recommendation -- it's an explanation of why the original benchmark was doing what it did and why it was giving counterintuitive results. Though I'll agree that it probably could have used a "don't try this at home" kind of warning, given the implications of the PERLSUB excerpt.

      -xdg

      Code posted by xdg on PerlMonks is public domain. It has no warranties, express or implied. Posted code may not have been tested. Use at your own risk.

Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks
by graff (Chancellor) on Mar 22, 2004 at 02:49 UTC
    This just goes to show that you should always check, doublecheck and triplecheck your benchmarks.

    Or, perhaps it means that people should limit their use of Benchmark::cmpthese()... they should only compare alternatives that actually have some specific relevance in the context of a given application.

    I think you've shown that by trying to isolate a couple of syntactic variants -- stripping away all "confounding factors" -- in order to benchmark their "intrinsic" speed, you end up testing some obscure aspect of the perl interpreter whose impact becomes irrelevant once you put those test cases back into the real world.

Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks
by Juerd (Abbot) on Mar 22, 2004 at 08:32 UTC

    I think the strangest phenomenon is that nobody of the many people involved saw the obvious... :)

    /me doesn't remember having seen any &, though.

Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Mar 24, 2004 at 20:08 UTC

    If you run your code under warnings, Perl complains about Odd number of elements in hash assignment. Nothing unexpected. But if you benchmark just one of the versions at a time, there's an interesting nugget to be found.

    The list bench is predictable and boring. The screen fills with warnings emitted at a constant rate.

    But the shift benchmark exhibits a rather inexplicable pattern. The fact that the warnings eventually stop is easy to understand: modifying the caller's @_ is a sideeffect that persists across iterations. What is really strange is that the warnings are emitted at progressively slower rate.

    Why? I don't know. I clawed around in the bowels of Benchmark.pm briefly but didn't find it very pleasant to read, so I gave up. Maybe someone more motivated than me wants to pick up this riddle.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlmeditation [id://338521]
Approved by Corion
Front-paged by TStanley
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (13)
As of 2014-09-23 14:49 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (223 votes), past polls