This questions deals with first load performance of Julia
I am running a Julia program from command line. The program is intended to be an API where user of the API doesn't have to initialize internal objects.
module Internal
type X
c::T1
d::T2
.
..
end
function do_something(a::X, arg:Any)
#some function
end
export do_something
end
API.jl
using Internal
const i_of_X = X()
function wrapper_do_something(args::Any)
do_something(i_of_X, args)
end
Now, this API.jl is exposed to third party user so that they don't have to bother about instantiating the internal objects. However, API.jl is not a module and hence cannot be precompiled. As there are many functions in API.jl, the first load takes a "very" long time.
Is there a way to improve the performance? I tried wrapping API.jl in a module too but I don't know if wrapping const initialized variables in a module is the way to go. I also get segmentation fault on doing so (some of the const are database connections and database collections along with other complex objects).
I am using v0.5 on OSX
[EDIT]
I did wrap API.jl in a module but there is no performance improvement.
I digged deeper and a big performance hit comes from the first call to linear regression function (GLM module based OLS lm(y~X, df)). The df has only 2 columns and 3 rows so it's not the run time issues but compilation slowness.
The other big hit comes from calling a highly overloaded function. The overloaded function fetches data from the database and can accept variety of input formats.
Is there a way to speed these up? Is there a way to fully precompile the julia program?
For a little more background, API based program is called once via command-line and any persistent first compilation advantages are lost as command-line closes the Julia process.
$julia run_api_based_main_func.jl
One hacky way to use the compilation benefits is to somehow copy/paste the code in already active julia process. Is this doable/recommended?(I am desperate to make it fast. Waiting 15-20s for a 2s analysis doesn't seem right)
It is OK to wrap const values in a module. They can be exported, as need be.
As Fengyang said, wrapping independent components of a larger design in modules is helpful and will help in this situation. When there is a great deal going on inside a module, the precompile time that accompanies each initial function call can add up. There is a way to avoid that -- precompile the contents before using the module:
__precompile__(true)
module ModuleName
# ...
end # module ModuleName
Please Note (from the online help):
__precompile__() should not be used in a module unless all of its dependencies are also using __precompile__(). Failure to do so can
result in a runtime error when loading the module.
Related
Lets say you have a feature to reserve a dining table broken down into multiple lambda functions ex:
1. RestaurantsLambda - get list of restaurants etc
2. BookingLambda - takes payment, confirms booking etc
3. EmailLambda - sending confirmation emails.
Now will you place all the above lambdas in 1 jar or have jar per lambda?
Probably all the functions are very small. If is the case, in the end of the day it will not make difference. But if they are big or, the functions has different dependencies, it will make difference, but...
The best practice is to keep in the lambda only the code needed by the function. This includes dependencies and libraries, and of course the main code. This best practice is based on the fact that for lambda execution the code must be downloaded at the first invocation (after a while, the code is dismissed and the next invocations will be treated as first again). In Java there is a extra pain that is the process of class loading that happens before code execution.
So: the best way to understand this response is: Bigger the code base, more time needed to load the function and more time that it will cost you.
Long story short: One jar per function!
Extra point: In Java you must be very caution with libraries to be imported. In aws-sdk for example, you must only import the libraries that you'll need instead of import the entire aws-sdk. This will keep your functions slim and ... read again the last paragraph...;-)
I have a function that does a find/replace on text files, and it has worked well for some time. Until I needed to process a 12 million line file.
My initial code used Get-Content and Write-Content, and with the massive file it was going to take hours to process, not to mention the memory implications of loading 12 million lines into RAM.
So, I wrote a little test script to compare that approach vs Stream Reader/Writer. And Streaming looked like it was going to be a massive performance improvement, dropping processing to 30 seconds. I then added a .Replace() on each line, and total processing time only went up to maybe a minute. All good. So then I went to implement it in my real code, and performance has tanked again. That code is a PS1 that loads a number of PSM1 files. The function to do the find replace is in one of those PSM1 files, and that code calls functions in another PSM1. The test script was everything in a single small PS1.
Given that my test script didn't use a function call at all, I tested that first, so there is a function in the PS1 that gets called 12 million times from the loop in the same PS1. No real performance impact.
So, my thought then was that calling a function in one PSM1 that then calls a function in another PSM1 (12 million times) might be the issue. So I made a dummy function (which just returns the passed string, as if no replacement was needed) in the same PSM1 as the loop. And that is orders of magnitude slower.
I have not tested this with everything in the PS1, mostly because these functions are needed in three different scripts with very different argument requirements, so implementing it with Modules really made a lot of sense logistically, and changing that would be a massive undertaking.
That said, is there a known performance hit when calling a function that lives in a Module? I was under the impression that once the Modules are loaded, it's basically the same as if it was all in a single PS1, but perhaps not? FWIW, I am not using NameSpaces. All of my functions just have function name prefix on the noun side to avoid conflicts.
I also can't really post minimally functional code very easily since that's in a single file that doesn't exhibit the behavior. If there is no obvious answer to someone I guess my next step is to implement the test script with some modules, but that's not really apples to apples either, since my real modules are rather large.
To add a little context: When the function (in a PSM1) does not call a function and simply sets $writeLine = $originalLine total time is 15 seconds.
When doing an actual find and replace inline (no call to a function) like this $writeLine = $originalLine.Replace($replace, $with) total processing time is 16 seconds.
When calling a function in the same PSM1 that just returns the original string total time is 17 minutes.
But again, when it's all in a PS1 file with no modules, calling a function has minimal impact. So it certainly seems like calling a function in a PSM1, even from a function in that same PSM1, has a massive performance overhead.
And more context:
I moved the replace function in the test script into a Module. No appreciable change. So I moved the main code, including the loop, into a function in that module, and called it from the main script. Again, no real change. Both took around 15 seconds.
So, it's not something innate in Modules. That then begs the question, what could I be doing in my other modules that would trigger this behavior? This modules are 3000-10,000 lines of code, so there is a lot going on. Hopefully someone has some insight as to best practices with modules to mitigate this. And hopefully it's not "Don't use big modules". ;)
Final update:
It seems it IS a function of how big the module is. I deleted all the other functions in the Module that contains the loop, and performance is fine, 17 seconds. So, basically even as of PS5.0, the implementation of modules is pretty useless for anything large. Rather disconcerting. I wonder if the same would be true if all the functions where in a single file, and PowerShell performance with large files with lots of functions is just bad? Anyone have any experience down this road?
Let me start with giving an example of what I'm dealing with first:
I often call existed Perl scripts from previous engineers to process some data, and then proceed further with my script. I either use system or back-ticks to call other people scripts within my script.
Now, I'm wondering if I rewrite those scripts as packages and use require or use to include those packages in my script, will it increase the processing speed? How big of a difference would it be?
Benefits:
It would save the time taken to load the shell, load perl, compile the script and the module it uses. That's a couple of seconds minimum, but it could be much larger.
If you had to serialize data to pass to the child, you also save the time taken to serialize and deserialize the data.
It would allow more flexible interfaces.
It would make error handling easier and more flexible.
Downsides:
Since everything is now in the same process, the child can have a much larger effect on the parent. e.g. A crash in the child will take down the parent.
I've been diagnosing a performance issue with generating a CSV containing around 50,000 lines and I've narrowed it down to a single function that is used once per line.
After a lot of messing about, I've discovered that there is an overhead in using the function, rather than placing the logic directly in the loop - my question is: Why?!
The function in question is very simple, it accepts a string argument and passes that to a switch/case block containing around 15 options - returning the resulting string.
I've put a bunch of timers all over the place and discovered that a lot (not all) of the time this function call takes between 0 and 200 ms to run... however if I put the exact same code inline, it sits at 0 on every iteration.
All this points to a fundamental issue in my understanding of object instantiation and I'd appreciate some clarification.
I was always under the impression that if I instantiate a component at the top of a page, or indeed if I instantiate it in a persistent scope like Application or Session, then it would be placed into memory and subsequent calls to functions within that component would be lightning fast.
It seems however, that there is an overhead to calling these functions and while we're only talking a few milliseconds, when you have to do that 50,000 times it quickly adds up.
Furthermore, it seems that doing this consumes resources. I'm not particularly well versed in the way the JVM uses memory, I've read up on it and played with settings and such, but it's an overwhelming topic - especially for those of us with no Java development experience. It seems that when calling the method over inline code, sometimes the ColdFusion service just collapses and the request never ends. Other times it does indeed complete, although way too slowly. This suggests that the request can complete only when the server has the resources to handle it - and thus that the method call itself is consuming memory... (?)
If indeed the calling of a method has an overhead attached, I have a big problem. It's not really feasible to move all of this code inline, (while the function in question is simple, there are plenty of other functions that I will need to make use of) and doing so goes against everything I believe as a developer!!
So, any help would be appreciated.
Just for clarity and because I'm sure someone will ask for it, here's the code in question:
EDIT: As suggested, I've changed the code to use a struct lookup rather than CFSwitch - below is amended code for reference, however there's also a test app in pastebin links at the bottom.
Inside the init method:
<cfset Variables.VehicleCategories = {
'T1' : 'Beetle'
, 'T1C' : 'Beetle Cabrio'
, 'T2' : 'Type 2 Split'
, 'T2B' : 'Type 2 Bay'
, 'T25' : 'Type 25'
, 'Ghia' : 'Karmann Ghia'
, 'T3' : 'Type 3'
, 'G1' : 'MK1 Golf'
, 'G1C' : 'MK1 Golf Cabriolet'
, 'CADDY' : 'MK1 Caddy'
, 'G2' : 'MK2 Golf'
, 'SC1' : 'MK1/2 Scirocco'
, 'T4' : 'T4'
, 'CO' : 'Corrado'
, 'MISC' : 'MISC'
} />
Function being called:
<cffunction name="getCategory" returntype="string" output="false">
<cfargument name="vehicleID" required="true" type="string" hint="Vehicle type" />
<cfscript>
if (structKeyExists(Variables.VehicleCategories, Arguments.VehicleID)) {
return Variables.VehicleCategories[Arguments.VehicleID];
}
else {
return 'Base SKUs';
}
</cfscript>
</cffunction>
As requested, I've created a test application to replicate this issue:
http://pastebin.com/KE2kUwEf - Application.cfc
http://pastebin.com/X8ZjL7D7 - TestCom.cfc (Place in 'com' folder outside webroot)
http://pastebin.com/n8hBLrfd - index.cfm
Function call will always be slower than inline code in Any language. That's why there's inline keyword in C++, and in JVM land there is JIT optimizer that will inline functions for you if it deems necessary.
Now ColdFusion is yet another layer on top of JVM. Therefore a function in CF is not a function in JVM, so things don't translate 1:1 at the JIT optimizer standpoint. A CFML function is actually compiled down to a Java class. Also, scopes like arguments, local (Java hashtables) are created on every invocation. Those takes time and memory and therefore overhead.
...if I instantiate it in a persistent scope like Application or
Session, then it would be placed into memory and subsequent calls to
functions within that component would be lightning fast
It'd be faster than instantiating a new instance for sure, but it's not going to be "lightning fast" especially when you call it in a tight loop.
In conclusion, inline the function and if it's still not fast enough, locate the slowest part of the code and write it in Java.
Just a side note here, since Railo uses inner classes instead of complete independent classes, it is faster if you write in such a style as to have many small functions. In my experiments, both engines perform similarly with basic inline code. Adobe ColdFusion lends itself to large god functions if you need to squeak out performance under load. With the JVM being unable to inline ColdFusion functions during compilation, you'll never get the benefit of the compiler being smart with your code.
This is especially important if you created an application that uses a ton of explicit getters/setters and you find your traffic increasing from small volume to high volume. All those little functions will bring you to your knees vs. having fewer large "god" functions.
Slowest to fastest with one basic test we ran of 100,000 iterations:
Adobe ColdFusion (many small functions) ( 200X slower than Java)
Railo (many small functions) (60X slower)
ColdFusion / Railo (all code inline in one giant function) (10X slower)
Native Java Class (fastest)
I have a chunk of lua code that I'd like to be able to (selectively) ignore. I don't have the option of not reading it in and sometimes I'd like it to be processed, sometimes not, so I can't just comment it out (that is, there's a whole bunch of blocks of code and I either have the option of reading none of them or reading all of them). I came up with two ways to implement this (there may well be more - I'm very much a beginner): either enclose the code in a function and then call or not call the function (and once I'm sure I'm passed the point where I would call the function, I can set it to nil to free up the memory) or enclose the code in an if ... end block. The former has slight advantages in that there are several of these blocks and using the former method makes it easier for one block to load another even if the main program didn't request it, but the latter seems the more efficient. However, not knowing much, I don't know if the efficiency saving is worth it.
So how much more efficient is:
if false then
-- a few hundred lines
end
than
throwaway = function ()
-- a few hundred lines
end
throwaway = nil -- to ensure that both methods leave me in the same state after garbage collection
?
If it depends a lot on the lua implementation, how big would the "few hundred lines" need to be to reliably spot the difference, and what sort of stuff should it include to best test (the main use of the blocks is to define a load of possibly useful functions)?
Lua's not smart enough to dump the code for the function, so you're not going to save any memory.
In terms of speed, you're talking about a different of nanoseconds which happens once per program execution. It's harming your efficiency to worry about this, which has virtually no relevance to actual performance. Write the code that you feel expresses your intent most clearly, without trying to be clever. If you run into performance issues, it's going to be a million miles away from this decision.
If you want to save memory, which is understandable on a mobile platform, you could put your conditional code in it's own module and never load it at all of not needed (if your framework supports it; e.g. MOAI does, Corona doesn't).
If there is really a lot of unused code, you can define it as a collection of Strings and loadstring() it when needed. Storing functions as strings will reduce the initial compile time, however of most functions the string representation probably takes up more memory than it's compiled form and what you save when compiling is probably not significant before a few thousand lines... Just saying.
If you put this code in a table, you could compile it transparently through a metatable for minimal performance impact on repeated calls.
Example code
local code_uncompiled = {
f = [=[
local x, y = ...;
return x+y;
]=]
}
code = setmetatable({}, {
__index = function(self, k)
self[k] = assert(loadstring(code_uncompiled[k]));
return self[k];
end
});
local ff = code.f; -- code of x gets compiled here
ff = code.f; -- no compilation here
for i=1, 1000 do
print( ff(2*i, -i) ); -- no compilation here either
print( code.f(2*i, -i) ); -- no compile either, but table access (slower)
end
The beauty of it is that this compiles as needed and you don't really have to waste another thought on it, it's just like storing a function in a table and allows for a lot of flexibility.
Another advantage of this solution is that when the amount of dynamically loaded code gets out of hand, you could transparently change it to load code from external files on demand through the __index function of the metatable. Also, you can mix compiled and uncompiled code by populating the "code" table with "real" functions.
Try the one that makes the code more legible to you first. If it runs fast enough on your target machine, use that.
If it doesn't run fast enough, try the other one.
lua can ignore multiple lines by:
function dostuff()
blabla
faaaaa
--[[
ignore this
and this
maybe this
this as well
]]--
end