gpu.js
gpu.js copied to clipboard
gpujs
feat: speed up compile by map
speed up compile by using map instead of array map is more than 30x faster
const mathFunctionsMap = {
abs: true,
acos: true,
acosh: true,
asin: true,
asinh: true,
atan: true,
atan2: true,
atanh: true,
cbrt: true,
ceil: true,
clz32: true,
cos: true,
cosh: true,
expm1: true,
exp: true,
floor: true,
fround: true,
imul: true,
log: true,
log2: true,
log10: true,
log1p: true,
max: true,
min: true,
pow: true,
random: true,
round: true,
sign: true,
sin: true,
sinh: true,
sqrt: true,
tan: true,
tanh: true,
trunc: true,
};
function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast) {
return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast];
}
function isAstMathFunctionList(ast) {
const mathFunctions = [
"abs",
"acos",
"acosh",
"asin",
"asinh",
"atan",
"atan2",
"atanh",
"cbrt",
"ceil",
"clz32",
"cos",
"cosh",
"expm1",
"exp",
"floor",
"fround",
"imul",
"log",
"log2",
"log10",
"log1p",
"max",
"min",
"pow",
"random",
"round",
"sign",
"sin",
"sinh",
"sqrt",
"tan",
"tanh",
"trunc",
];
return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1;
}
console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap");
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet(""));
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc"));
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionMap("trunc")
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap");
console.time("isAstMathFunctionList");
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionList("trunc");
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList");
/*
isAstMathFunctionMap: 75.357ms
isAstMathFunctionList: 3.747s
*/
It's taking longer because you are defining the array in each call. If the array is a constant, the array is actually faster.
@harshkhandeparkar This doesnt affect much, array is still much slower:
Also, in the source code we defining array in function, so I do this in the test
const mathFunctionsMap = {
abs: true,
acos: true,
acosh: true,
asin: true,
asinh: true,
atan: true,
atan2: true,
atanh: true,
cbrt: true,
ceil: true,
clz32: true,
cos: true,
cosh: true,
expm1: true,
exp: true,
floor: true,
fround: true,
imul: true,
log: true,
log2: true,
log10: true,
log1p: true,
max: true,
min: true,
pow: true,
random: true,
round: true,
sign: true,
sin: true,
sinh: true,
sqrt: true,
tan: true,
tanh: true,
trunc: true,
};
function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast) {
return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast];
}
const mathFunctions = [
"abs",
"acos",
"acosh",
"asin",
"asinh",
"atan",
"atan2",
"atanh",
"cbrt",
"ceil",
"clz32",
"cos",
"cosh",
"expm1",
"exp",
"floor",
"fround",
"imul",
"log",
"log2",
"log10",
"log1p",
"max",
"min",
"pow",
"random",
"round",
"sign",
"sin",
"sinh",
"sqrt",
"tan",
"tanh",
"trunc",
];
function isAstMathFunctionList(ast) {
return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1;
}
console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap");
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet(""));
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc"));
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionMap("trunc")
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap");
console.time("isAstMathFunctionList");
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionList("trunc");
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList");
/*
isAstMathFunctionMap: 66.243ms
isAstMathFunctionList: 3.532s
*/
Checking the first element by indexOf is also slower:
const mathFunctionsMap = {
abs: true,
acos: true,
acosh: true,
asin: true,
asinh: true,
atan: true,
atan2: true,
atanh: true,
cbrt: true,
ceil: true,
clz32: true,
cos: true,
cosh: true,
expm1: true,
exp: true,
floor: true,
fround: true,
imul: true,
log: true,
log2: true,
log10: true,
log1p: true,
max: true,
min: true,
pow: true,
random: true,
round: true,
sign: true,
sin: true,
sinh: true,
sqrt: true,
tan: true,
tanh: true,
trunc: true,
};
function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast) {
return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast];
}
const mathFunctions = [
"abs",
"acos",
"acosh",
"asin",
"asinh",
"atan",
"atan2",
"atanh",
"cbrt",
"ceil",
"clz32",
"cos",
"cosh",
"expm1",
"exp",
"floor",
"fround",
"imul",
"log",
"log2",
"log10",
"log1p",
"max",
"min",
"pow",
"random",
"round",
"sign",
"sin",
"sinh",
"sqrt",
"tan",
"tanh",
"trunc",
];
function isAstMathFunctionList(ast) {
return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1;
}
console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap");
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet(""));
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc"));
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionMap("abs")
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap");
console.time("isAstMathFunctionList");
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionList("abs");
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList");
/*
const mathFunctionsMap = {
abs: true,
acos: true,
acosh: true,
asin: true,
asinh: true,
atan: true,
atan2: true,
atanh: true,
cbrt: true,
ceil: true,
clz32: true,
cos: true,
cosh: true,
expm1: true,
exp: true,
floor: true,
fround: true,
imul: true,
log: true,
log2: true,
log10: true,
log1p: true,
max: true,
min: true,
pow: true,
random: true,
round: true,
sign: true,
sin: true,
sinh: true,
sqrt: true,
tan: true,
tanh: true,
trunc: true,
};
function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast) {
return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast];
}
const mathFunctions = [
"abs",
"acos",
"acosh",
"asin",
"asinh",
"atan",
"atan2",
"atanh",
"cbrt",
"ceil",
"clz32",
"cos",
"cosh",
"expm1",
"exp",
"floor",
"fround",
"imul",
"log",
"log2",
"log10",
"log1p",
"max",
"min",
"pow",
"random",
"round",
"sign",
"sin",
"sinh",
"sqrt",
"tan",
"tanh",
"trunc",
];
function isAstMathFunctionList(ast) {
return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1;
}
console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap");
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet(""));
// console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc"));
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionMap("abs")
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap");
console.time("isAstMathFunctionList");
for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++) {
isAstMathFunctionList("abs");
}
console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList");
/*
isAstMathFunctionMap: 74.071ms
isAstMathFunctionList: 375.602ms
*/
I did a little more testing too. I found that using array.includes is much faster than indexOf. And the includes is faster than using an object.
findArrIncludes: 512ms
findArrIndexOf: 18376ms
findObj: 5201ms
findMap: 19002ms
I used 10^9 operations here and also used a key in between the array (clz32) instead of at last. Here's the code: final code attached below
Further testing reveals how the time taken changes when the element to be searched changes:
findArrIncludes_first: 561ms
findArrIncludes_middle: 605ms
findArrIncludes_end: 631ms
findArrIndexOf_first: 8968ms
findArrIndexOf_middle: 22198ms
findArrIndexOf_end: 37412ms
findObj_first: 4891ms
findObj_middle: 24635ms
findObj_end: 25857ms
findMap_first: 11336ms
findMap_middle: 20039ms
findMap_end: 9927ms
indexOf and Object both take more time to search an element at the end than at the beginning. includes on the other hand, takes almost the same amount of time. Map.has is inconsistent for some reason.
@harshkhandeparkar This doesnt affect much, array is still much slower:
Somehow, my initial test gave different results. The later tests are consistent with yours. Nice find! Although, changing to includes might increase the performance even further.
@harshkhandeparkar This doesnt affect much, array is still much slower:
Somehow, my initial test gave different results. The later tests are consistent with yours. Nice find! Although, changing to
includesmight increase the performance even further.
If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower, and if test them seperatly, they have similar speed, but they are always much more faster than findArrIndexOf
If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower
Why?
If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower
Why?
Maybe gc or cache related?
If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower
Why?
Maybe gc or cache related?
Hmm, perhaps. I tested them separately and found that includes still has the benefit of constant search time.
findArrIncludes_first 470 ms
findArrIncludes_middle 463 ms
findArrIncludes_end 235 ms
and
findObj_first 472 ms
findObj_middle 17960 ms
findObj_end 19666 ms
Hmm, perhaps. I tested them separately and found that includes still has the benefit of constant search time.
findArrIncludes_first 470 ms findArrIncludes_middle 463 ms findArrIncludes_end 235 msand
findObj_first 472 ms findObj_middle 17960 ms findObj_end 19666 ms
Can confirm this is true, thanks a lot for your help!
lets switch to includes