Haskell: partially drop lazy evaluated results - caching

I have a very large decision tree. It is used as follows:
-- once per application start
t :: Tree
t = buildDecisionTree
-- done several times
makeDecision :: Something -> Decision
makeDecision something = search t something
This decision tree is way too large to fit in memory. But, thanks to lazy evaluation, it is only partially evaluated.
The problem is, that there are scenarios where all possible decisions are tried causing the whole tree to be evaluated. This is not going to terminate, but should not cause a memory overflow either. Further, if this process is aborted, the memory usage does not decrease, as a huge subtree is still evaluated already.
A solution would be to reevaluate the tree every time makeDecision is called, but this would loose the benefits of caching decisions and significantly slow down makeDecision.
I would like to go a middle course. In particular it is very common in my application to do successive decisions with common path prefix in the tree. So I would like to cache the last used path but drop the others, causing them to reevaluate the next time they are used. How can I do this in Haskell?

It is not possible in pure haskell, see question Can a thunk be duplicated to improve memory performance? (as pointed out by #shang). You can, however, do this with IO.
We start with the module heade and list only the type and the functions that should make this module (which will use unsafePerformIO) safe. It is also possible to do this without unsafePerformIO, but that would mean that the user has to keep more of his code in IO.
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
module ReEval (ReEval, newReEval, readReEval, resetReEval) where
import Data.IORef
import System.IO.Unsafe
We start by defining a data type that stores a value in a way that prevents all sharing, by keeping the function and the argument away from each other, and only apply the function when we want the value. Note that the value returned by unsharedValue can be shared, but not with the return value of other invocations (assuming the function is doing something non-trivial):
data Unshared a = forall b. Unshared (b -> a) b
unsharedValue :: Unshared a -> a
unsharedValue (Unshared f x) = f x
Now we define our data type of resettable computations. We need to store the computation and the current value. The latter is stored in an IORef, as we want to be able to reset it.
data ReEval a = ReEval {
calculation :: Unshared a,
currentValue :: IORef a
}
To wrap a value in a ReEval box, we need to have a function and an argument. Why not just a -> ReEval a? Because then there would be no way to prevent the parameter to be shared.
newReEval :: (b -> a) -> b -> ReEval a
newReEval f x = unsafePerformIO $ do
let c = Unshared f x
ref <- newIORef (unsharedValue c)
return $ ReEval c ref
Reading is simple: Just get the value from the IORef. This use of unsafePerformIO is safe becuase we will always get the value of unsharedValue c, although a different “copy” of it.
readReEval :: ReEval a -> a
readReEval r = unsafePerformIO $ readIORef (currentValue r)
And finally the resetting. I left it in the IO monad, not because it would be any less safe than the other function to be wrapped in unsafePerformIO, but because this is the easiest way to give the user control over when the resetting actually happens. You don’t want to risk that all your calls to resetReEval are lazily delayed until your memory has run out or even optimized away because there is no return value to use.
resetReEval :: ReEval a -> IO ()
resetReEval r = writeIORef (currentValue r) (unsharedValue (calculation r))
This is the end of the module. Here is example code:
import Debug.Trace
import ReEval
main = do
let func a = trace ("func " ++ show a) negate a
let l = [ newReEval func n | n <- [1..5] ]
print (map readReEval l)
print (map readReEval l)
mapM_ resetReEval l
print (map readReEval l)
And here you can see that it does what expected:
$ runhaskell test.hs
func 1
func 2
func 3
func 4
func 5
[-1,-2,-3,-4,-5]
[-1,-2,-3,-4,-5]
func 1
func 2
func 3
func 4
func 5
[-1,-2,-3,-4,-5]

Related

Iterate State Monad and Collect Results in Sequence with Good Performance

I implemented the following function:
iterateState :: Int -> (a -> State s a) -> (a -> State s [a])
iterateState 0 f a = return []
iterateState n f a = do
b <- f a
xs <- iterateState (n - 1) f b
return $ b : xs
My primary use case is for a = Double. It works, but it is very slow. It allocates 528MB of heap space to produce a list of 1M Double values and spends most of its time doing garbage collection.
I have experimented with implementations that work on the type s -> (a, s) directly as well as with various strictness annotations. I was able to reduce the heap allocation somewhat, but not even close to what one would expect from a reasonable implementation. I suspect that the resulting ([a], s) being a combination of something to be consumed lazily ([a]) and something whose WHNF forces the entire computation (s) makes optimization difficult for GHC.
Assuming that the iterative nature of lists would be unsuitable for this situation, I turned to the vector package. To my delight, it already contains
iterateNM :: (Monad m, Unbox a) => Int -> (a -> m a) -> a -> m (Vector a)
Unfortunately, this is only slightly faster than my list implementation, still allocating 328MB of heap space. I assumed that this is because it uses unstreamM, whose description reads
Load monadic stream bundle into a newly allocated vector. This function goes through a list, so prefer using unstream, unless you need to be in a monad.
Looking at its behavior for the list monad, it is understandable that there is no efficient implementation for general monads. Luckily, I only need the state monad, and I found another function that almost fits the signature of the state monad.
unfoldrExactN :: Unbox a => Int -> (b -> (a, b)) -> b -> Vector a
This function is blazingly fast and performs no excess heap allocation beyond the 8MB needed to hold the resulting unboxed vector of 1M Double values. Unfortunately, it does not return the final state at the end of the computation, so it cannot be wrapped in the State type.
I looked at the implementation of unfoldrExactN to see if I could adjust it to expose the final state at the end of the computation. Unfortunately, this seems to be difficult, as the stream constructed by
unfoldrExactN :: Monad m => Int -> (s -> (a, s)) -> s -> Stream m a
which is eventually expanded into a vector by unstream has already forgotten the state type s.
I imagine I could circumvent the entire Stream infrastructure and implement iterateState directly on mutable vectors in the ST monad (similarly to how unstream expands a stream into a vector). However, I would lose all the benefits of stream fusion, as well as turning a computation that is easily expressed as a pure function into imperative low-level mush just for performance reasons. This is particularly frustrating while knowing that the existing unfoldrExactN already calculates all the values I want, but I have no access to them.
Is there a better way?
Can this function be implemented in a purely functional way with reasonable performance and no excess heap allocations? Preferably in a way that ties into the vector package and its stream fusion infrastructure.
The following program has 12MB max residency on my computer when compiled with optimizations:
import Data.Vector.Unboxed
import Data.Vector.Unboxed.Mutable
iterateNState :: Unbox a => Int -> (a -> s -> (s, a)) -> (a -> s -> (s, Vector a))
iterateNState n f a0 s0 = createT (unsafeNew n >>= go 0 a0 s0) where
go i a s arr
| i >= n = pure (s, arr)
| otherwise = do
unsafeWrite arr i a
case f a s of
(s', a') -> go (i+1) a' s' arr
main = id
. print
. Data.Vector.Unboxed.sum
. snd
$ iterateNState 1000000 (\a s -> (s+1, a+s :: Int)) 0 0
(It continues to have a nice low residency even when the final two 0s are read from input dynamically.)

Use `seq` and print in haskell

I know that this is a little bit tricky but i wonder why it doesn't work!
module Main where
sillyDebug :: Int -> Int -> Int
sillyDebug x y =
(print x) `seq` (x + y)
main :: IO ()
main = do
print (sillyDebug 1 2)
while its ideal is the same as
sillyDebug = (trace (show x) False) `seq` (x + y)
Is it related to lazy evaluation or side effect in haskell?
https://hackhands.com/lazy-evaluation-works-haskell/
Merely evaluating some IO action doesn’t do anything at all. You can think of IO sort of like a really big sum type of all the possible side-effectful things Haskell can do, even if it isn’t actually implemented like that at all. Something like this:
data IO a where
PutStrLn :: String -> IO ()
ReadFile :: FilePath -> IO String
ExitWith :: ExitCode -> IO a
...
One of the IO constructors in this theoretical visualization would be a Sequence constructor, with a type signature like this:
Sequence :: IO a -> (a -> IO b) -> IO b
This constructor is used to implement >>= for the IO type.
Inside of GHC is a magical function called magicallyExecuteIO with type IO a -> a, which coordinates for each action to actually perform its corresponding side-effect. (Incidentally, this function is also sometimes pronounced unsafePerformIO.) GHC implicitly calls magicallyExecuteIO on the result of your program’s main function, as well as on expressions written in GHCi.
However, without using magicallyExecuteIO, evaluating one of the IO constructors like PutStrLn doesn’t do anything. In this implementation, it would just work like any other data constructor:
ghci> Just (PutStrLn "hello!")
Just (PutStrLn "hello!") :: Maybe (IO ())
(I’ve wrapped it with Just to prevent GHCi from running the IO action.)
Of course, GHC’s actual IO type isn’t implemented this way, but that’s really just an implementation detail. Evaluating an IO a value doesn’t cause a side-effect to happen any more than evaluating a Maybe a value does. Only magicallyExecuteIO can do that.

Haskell: performance of IORefs

I have been trying to encode an algorithm in Haskell that requires using lots of mutable references, but it is (perhaps not surprisingly) very slow in comparison to purely lazy code.
Consider a very simple example:
module Main where
import Data.IORef
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.Identity
list :: [Int]
list = [1..10^6]
main1 = mapM newIORef list >>= mapM readIORef >>= print
main2 = print $ map runIdentity $ map Identity list
Running GHC 7.8.2 on my machine, main1 takes 1.2s and uses 290MB of memory, while main2 takes only 0.4s and uses a mere 1MB. Is there any trick to prevent this growth, especially in space? I often need IORefs for non-primitive types unlike Int, and assumed that an IORef would use an additional pointer much like a regular thunk, but my intuition seems to be wrong.
I have already tried a specialized list type with an unpacked IORef, but with no significant difference.
The problem is your use of mapM, which always performs poorly on large lists both in time and space. The correct solution is to fuse away the intermediate lists by using mapM_ and (>=>):
import Data.IORef
import Control.Monad
list :: [Int]
list = [1..10^6]
main = mapM_ (newIORef >=> readIORef >=> print) list
This runs in constant space and gives excellent performance, running in 0.4 seconds on my machine.
Edit: In answer to your question, you can also do this with pipes to avoid having to manually fuse the loop:
import Data.IORef
import Pipes
import qualified Pipes.Prelude as Pipes
list :: [Int]
list = [1..10^6]
main = runEffect $
each list >-> Pipes.mapM newIORef >-> Pipes.mapM readIORef >-> Pipes.print
This runs in constant space in about 0.7 seconds on my machine.
This is very likely not about IORef, but about strictness. Actions in the IO monad are serial -- all previous actions must complete before the next one can be started. So
mapM newIORef list
generates a million IORefs before anything is read.
However,
map runIdentity . map Identity
= map (runIdentity . Identity)
= map id
which streams very nicely, so we print one element of the list, then generate the next one, etc.
If you want a fairer comparison, use a strict map:
map' :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map' f [] = []
map' f (x:xs) = (f x:) $! map' f xs
I have found that the hack towards a solution is to use a lazy mapM instead, defined as
lazyMapM :: (a -> IO b) -> [a] -> IO [b]
lazyMapM f [] = return []
lazyMapM f (x:xs) = do
y <- f x
ys <- unsafeInterleaveIO $ lazyMapM f xs
return (y:ys)
This allows the monadic version to run within the same 1MB and similar time. I would expect that a lazy ST monad could solve this problem more elegantly without using unsafeInterleaveIO, as a function:
main = print $ runST (mapM (newSTRef) list >>= mapM (readSTRef))
but that does not work (you also need to use unsafeInterleaveST), what leaves me thinking about how lazy the Control.Monad.ST.Lazy really is. Does someone know? :)

Read lines of a file, sort and return middle element

I am kind of new to IO with Haskell and although I read through it a lot, my code still won't work.
What I want the app to do:
Read all lines of a file (file1.txt, file2.txt, ...), where all contain numbers each line (floats like 1.12345)
Sort all these lines (string sorting or float sorting doesn't matter, I assume string sorting is faster?)
Get the middle element of the list and print it out
This is the code I do have so far. I can assure that the function "middle" works fine when passing a [String].
middle :: [a] -> a
middle xs = (drop ((l - 1) `div ` 2) xs) !! 0
where l = length xs
getSortedMiddleElement :: Int -> String
getSortedMiddleElement i = do
dat <- readFile $ "file" ++ (show i) ++ ".txt"
return $ middle $ sort $ lines dat
I am calling getSortedMiddleElement from a "Int -> Content" function (I use Yesod), where the number is being passed via URL and the middle element should be returned to the user. To get Content out of a string, it needs to be "String", not "IO String"... How can this be easily achieved?
Thanks in advance!
Your type signature says that your function is pure (i.e., it takes an Int and returns a String) but inside, you are performing IO! Haskell will not let you write such a function. Anything you read from a file is forever stuck in the IO monad, and that's that (barring unsafe functions, of course).
In this case, that turns out to not be so bad, because Yesod is a heavily IO-based framework. All network traffic is stuck in the IO monad as well!
When you're in a monad transformer stack, you have access to monadic computations at each level of the stack, but only one of them directly. You use lift to move a computation from a monad one layer down in the stack into the transformed monad. If IO is in the stack, no matter how many layers down, you can access its actions directly via liftIO.
So if you have type T = ReaderT String IO then you may have a function foo :: Int -> T String. In this function, you'll be operating in the T monad, which transforms the IO monad with the Reader monad capabilities. In this context, you can say lift readFile and instead of getting an IO String result, you'll get a T String result! That's just an IO String wrapped in the ReaderT type, though, so don't think we did anything tricky like escaping the IO monad. That might have been a bit confusing, so let's look at an example:
import Control.Monad.Reader (ReaderT)
import Control.Monad.Writer (WriterT)
import Control.Monad.Trans (lift, liftIO)
type T = ReaderT String IO
getSortedMiddleElement :: Int -> IO String
foo :: Int -> T String
foo n = do
str <- lift $ getSortedMiddleElement n --str holds a pure String now
lift $ putStrLn str --get `putStrLn` from IO and pass the String
return str --let's wrap it back in T now
But what if we're more than one layer away from IO? Let's try it out:
type W = WriterT String T -- WriterT String (ReaderT String IO)
-- This doesn't work; lift only gives you access to the next layer's actions
-- but IO is now more than one layer away!
--
--bar n = do
-- str <- lift $ getSortedMiddleElement n
-- Instead, we need liftIO, which will access IO across many transformer layers
bar :: Int -> W String
bar n = do
str <- liftIO $ getSortedMiddleElement n
liftIO $ putStrLn str
return str

Haskell mutable map/tree

I am looking for a mutable (balanced) tree/map/hash table in Haskell or a way how to simulate it inside a function. I.e. when I call the same function several times, the structure is preserved. So far I have tried Data.HashTable (which is OK, but somewhat slow) and tried Data.Array.Judy but I was unable to make it work with GHC 6.10.4. Are there any other options?
If you want mutable state, you can have it. Just keep passing the updated map around, or keep it in a state monad (which turns out to be the same thing).
import qualified Data.Map as Map
import Control.Monad.ST
import Data.STRef
memoize :: Ord k => (k -> ST s a) -> ST s (k -> ST s a)
memoize f = do
mc <- newSTRef Map.empty
return $ \k -> do
c <- readSTRef mc
case Map.lookup k c of
Just a -> return a
Nothing -> do a <- f k
writeSTRef mc (Map.insert k a c) >> return a
You can use this like so. (In practice, you might want to add a way to clear items from the cache, too.)
import Control.Monad
main :: IO ()
main = do
fib <- stToIO $ fixST $ \fib -> memoize $ \n ->
if n < 2 then return n else liftM2 (+) (fib (n-1)) (fib (n-2))
mapM_ (print <=< stToIO . fib) [1..10000]
At your own risk, you can unsafely escape from the requirement of threading state through everything that needs it.
import System.IO.Unsafe
unsafeMemoize :: Ord k => (k -> a) -> k -> a
unsafeMemoize f = unsafePerformIO $ do
f' <- stToIO $ memoize $ return . f
return $ unsafePerformIO . stToIO . f'
fib :: Integer -> Integer
fib = unsafeMemoize $ \n -> if n < 2 then n else fib (n-1) + fib (n-2)
main :: IO ()
main = mapM_ (print . fib) [1..1000]
Building on #Ramsey's answer, I also suggest you reconceive your function to take a map and return a modified one. Then code using good ol' Data.Map, which is pretty efficient at modifications. Here is a pattern:
import qualified Data.Map as Map
-- | takes input and a map, and returns a result and a modified map
myFunc :: a -> Map.Map k v -> (r, Map.Map k v)
myFunc a m = … -- put your function here
-- | run myFunc over a list of inputs, gathering the outputs
mapFuncWithMap :: [a] -> Map.Map k v -> ([r], Map.Map k v)
mapFuncWithMap as m0 = foldr step ([], m0) as
where step a (rs, m) = let (r, m') = myFunc a m in (r:rs, m')
-- this starts with an initial map, uses successive versions of the map
-- on each iteration, and returns a tuple of the results, and the final map
-- | run myFunc over a list of inputs, gathering the outputs
mapFunc :: [a] -> [r]
mapFunc as = fst $ mapFuncWithMap as Map.empty
-- same as above, but starts with an empty map, and ignores the final map
It is easy to abstract this pattern and make mapFuncWithMap generic over functions that use maps in this way.
Although you ask for a mutable type, let me suggest that you use an immutable data structure and that you pass successive versions to your functions as an argument.
Regarding which data structure to use,
There is an implementation of red-black trees at Kent
If you have integer keys, Data.IntMap is extremely efficient.
If you have string keys, the bytestring-trie package from Hackage looks very good.
The problem is that I cannot use (or I don't know how to) use a non-mutable type.
If you're lucky, you can pass your table data structure as an extra parameter to every function that needs it. If, however, your table needs to be widely distributed, you may wish to use a state monad where the state is the contents of your table.
If you are trying to memoize, you can try some of the lazy memoization tricks from Conal Elliott's blog, but as soon as you go beyond integer arguments, lazy memoization becomes very murky—not something I would recommend you try as a beginner. Maybe you can post a question about the broader problem you are trying to solve? Often with Haskell and mutability the issue is how to contain the mutation or updates within some kind of scope.
It's not so easy learning to program without any global mutable variables.
If I read your comments right, then you have a structure with possibly ~500k total values to compute. The computations are expensive, so you want them done only once, and on subsequent accesses, you just want the value without recomputation.
In this case, use Haskell's laziness to your advantage! ~500k is not so big: Just build a map of all the answers, and then fetch as needed. The first fetch will force computation, subsequent fetches of the same answer will reuse the same result, and if you never fetch a particular computation - it never happens!
You can find a small implementation of this idea using 3D point distances as the computation in the file PointCloud.hs. That file uses Debug.Trace to log when the computation actually gets done:
> ghc --make PointCloud.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( PointCloud.hs, PointCloud.o )
Linking PointCloud ...
> ./PointCloud
(1,2)
(<calc (1,2)>)
Just 1.0
(1,2)
Just 1.0
(1,5)
(<calc (1,5)>)
Just 1.0
(1,2)
Just 1.0
Are there any other options?
A mutable reference to a purely functional dictionary like Data.Map.

Resources