When I first started reading about and learning ruby, I read something about the power of ruby symbols over strings: symbols are stored in memory only once, while strings are stored in memory once per string, even if they are the same.
For instance: Rails' params Hash in the Controller has a bunch of keys as symbols:
params[:id] or
params[:title]...
But other decently sized projects such as Sinatra and Jekyll don't do that:
Jekyll:
post.data["title"] or
post.data["tags"]...
Sinatra:
params["id"] or
params["title"]...
This makes reading new code a little tricky, and makes it hard to transfer code around and to figure out why using symbols isn't working. There are many more examples of this and it's kind of confusing. Should we or shouldn't we be using symbols in this case? What are the advantages of symbols and should we be using them here?
In ruby, after creating the AST, each symbol is represented as a unique integer. Having symbols as hash keys makes the computing a lot faster, as the main operation is comparison.
Symbols are not garbage collected AFAIK, so that might be a thing to watch out for, but except for that they really are great as hash keys.
One reason for the usage of strings may be the usage of yaml to define the values.
require 'yaml'
data = YAML.load(<<-data
one:
title: one
tag: 1
two:
title: two
tag: 2
data
) #-> {"one"=>{"title"=>"one", "tag"=>1}, "two"=>{"title"=>"two", "tag"=>2}}
You may use yaml to define symbol-keys:
require 'yaml'
data = YAML.load(<<-data
:one:
:title: one
:tag: 1
:two:
:title: two
:tag: 2
data
) #-> {:one=>{:title=>"one", :tag=>1}, :two=>{:title=>"two", :tag=>2}}
But in the yaml-definition symbols look a bit strange, strings looks more natural.
Another reason for strings as keys: Depending on the use case, it can be reasonable to sort by keys, but you can't sort symbols (at least not without a conversion to strings).
The main difference is that multiple symbols representing a single value are identical whereas this is not true with strings. For example:
irb(main):007:0> :test.object_id
=> 83618
irb(main):008:0> :test.object_id
=> 83618
irb(main):009:0> :test.object_id
=> 83618
3 references to the symbol :test, all the same object.
irb(main):010:0> "test".object_id
=> -605770378
irb(main):011:0> "test".object_id
=> -605779298
irb(main):012:0> "test".object_id
=> -605784948
3 references to the string "test", all different objects.
This means that using symbols can potentially save a good bit of memory depending on the application. It is also faster to compare symbols for equality since they are the same object, comparing identical strings is much slower since the string values need to be compared instead of just the object ids.
I usually use strings for almost everything except things like hash keys where I really want a unique identifier, not a string
Related
If there are at least two instances of the same string in my script, should I instead use a symbol?
TL;DR
A simple rule of thumb is to use symbols every time you need internal identifiers. For Ruby < 2.2 only use symbols when they aren't generated dynamically, to avoid memory leaks.
Full answer
The only reason not to use them for identifiers that are generated dynamically is because of memory concerns.
This question is very common because many programming languages don't have symbols, only strings, and thus strings are also used as identifiers in your code. You should be worrying about what symbols are meant to be, not only when you should use symbols. Symbols are meant to be identifiers. If you follow this philosophy, chances are that you will do things right.
There are several differences between the implementation of symbols and strings. The most important thing about symbols is that they are immutable. This means that they will never have their value changed. Because of this, symbols are instantiated faster than strings and some operations like comparing two symbols is also faster.
The fact that a symbol is immutable allows Ruby to use the same object every time you reference the symbol, saving memory. So every time the interpreter reads :my_key it can take it from memory instead of instantiate it again. This is less expensive than initializing a new string every time.
You can get a list all symbols that are already instantiated with the command Symbol.all_symbols:
symbols_count = Symbol.all_symbols.count # all_symbols is an array with all
# instantiated symbols.
a = :one
puts a.object_id
# prints 167778
a = :two
puts a.object_id
# prints 167858
a = :one
puts a.object_id
# prints 167778 again - the same object_id from the first time!
puts Symbol.all_symbols.count - symbols_count
# prints 2, the two objects we created.
For Ruby versions before 2.2, once a symbol is instantiated, this memory will never be free again. The only way to free the memory is restarting the application. So symbols are also a major cause of memory leaks when used incorrectly. The simplest way to generate a memory leak is using the method to_sym on user input data, since this data will always change, a new portion of the memory will be used forever in the software instance. Ruby 2.2 introduced the symbol garbage collector, which frees symbols generated dynamically, so the memory leaks generated by creating symbols dynamically it is not a concern any longer.
Answering your question:
Is it true I have to use a symbol instead of a string if there is at least two the same strings in my application or script?
If what you are looking for is an identifier to be used internally at your code, you should be using symbols. If you are printing output, you should go with strings, even if it appears more than once, even allocating two different objects in memory.
Here's the reasoning:
Printing the symbols will be slower than printing strings because they are cast to strings.
Having lots of different symbols will increase the overall memory usage of your application since they are never deallocated. And you are never using all strings from your code at the same time.
Use case by #AlanDert
#AlanDert: if I use many times something like %input{type: :checkbox} in haml code, what should I use as checkbox?
Me: Yes.
#AlanDert: But to print out a symbol on html page, it should be converted to string, shouldn't it? what's the point of using it then?
What is the type of an input? An identifier of the type of input you want to use or something you want to show to the user?
It is true that it will become HTML code at some point, but at the moment you are writing that line of your code, it is mean to be an identifier - it identifies what kind of input field you need. Thus, it is used over and over again in your code, and have always the same "string" of characters as the identifier and won't generate a memory leak.
That said, why don't we evaluate the data to see if strings are faster?
This is a simple benchmark I created for this:
require 'benchmark'
require 'haml'
str = Benchmark.measure do
10_000.times do
Haml::Engine.new('%input{type: "checkbox"}').render
end
end.total
sym = Benchmark.measure do
10_000.times do
Haml::Engine.new('%input{type: :checkbox}').render
end
end.total
puts "String: " + str.to_s
puts "Symbol: " + sym.to_s
Three outputs:
# first time
String: 5.14
Symbol: 5.07
#second
String: 5.29
Symbol: 5.050000000000001
#third
String: 4.7700000000000005
Symbol: 4.68
So using smbols is actually a bit faster than using strings. Why is that? It depends on the way HAML is implemented. I would need to hack a bit on HAML code to see, but if you keep using symbols in the concept of an identifier, your application will be faster and reliable. When questions strike, benchmark it and get your answers.
Put simply, a symbol is a name, composed of characters, but immutable. A string, on the contrary, is an ordered container for characters, whose contents are allowed to change.
Here is a nice strings vs symbols benchmark I found at codecademy:
require 'benchmark'
string_AZ = Hash[("a".."z").to_a.zip((1..26).to_a)]
symbol_AZ = Hash[(:a..:z).to_a.zip((1..26).to_a)]
string_time = Benchmark.realtime do
1000_000.times { string_AZ["r"] }
end
symbol_time = Benchmark.realtime do
1000_000.times { symbol_AZ[:r] }
end
puts "String time: #{string_time} seconds."
puts "Symbol time: #{symbol_time} seconds."
The output is:
String time: 0.21983 seconds.
Symbol time: 0.087873 seconds.
use symbols as hash key identifiers
{key: "value"}
symbols allow you to call the method in a different order
def write(file:, data:, mode: "ascii")
# removed for brevity
end
write(data: 123, file: "test.txt")
freeze to keep as a string and save memory
label = 'My Label'.freeze
I'm learning Ruby right now for the Rhodes mobile application framework and came across this problem: Rhodes' HTTP client parses JSON responses into Ruby data structures, e.g.
puts #params # prints {"body"=>{"results"=>[]}}
Since the key "body" is a string here, my first attempt #params[:body] failed (is nil) and instead it must be #params['body']. I find this most unfortunate.
Can somebody explain the rationale why strings and symbols have different hashes, i.e. :body.hash != 'body'.hash in this case?
Symbols and strings serve two different purposes.
Strings are your good old familiar friends: mutable and garbage-collectable. Every time you use a string literal or #to_s method, a new string is created. You use strings to build HTML markup, output text to screen and whatnot.
Symbols, on the other hand, are different. Each symbol exists only in one instance and it exists always (i.e, it is not garbage-collected). Because of that you should make new symbols very carefully (String#to_sym and :'' literal). These properties make them a good candidate for naming things. For example, it's idiomatic to use symbols in macros like attr_reader :foo.
If you got your hash from an external source (you deserialized a JSON response, for example) and you want to use symbols to access its elements, then you can either use HashWithIndifferentAccess (as others pointed out), or call helper methods from ActiveSupport:
require 'active_support/core_ext'
h = {"body"=>{"results"=>[]}}
h.symbolize_keys # => {:body=>{"results"=>[]}}
h.stringify_keys # => {"body"=>{"results"=>[]}}
Note that it'll only touch top level and will not go into child hashes.
Symbols and Strings are never ==:
:foo == 'foo' # => false
That's a (very reasonable) design decision. After all, they have different classes, methods, one is mutable the other isn't, etc...
Because of that, it is mandatory that they are never eql?:
:foo.eql? 'foo' # => false
Two objects that are not eql? typically don't have the same hash, but even if they did, the Hash lookup uses hash and then eql?. So your question really was "why are symbols and strings not eql?".
Rails uses HashWithIndifferentAccess that accesses indifferently with strings or symbols.
In Rails, the params hash is actually a HashWithIndifferentAccess rather than a standard ruby Hash object. This allows you to use either strings like 'action' or symbols like :action to access the contents.
You will get the same results regardless of what you use, but keep in mind this only works on HashWithIndifferentAccess objects.
Copied from : Params hash keys as symbols vs strings
A lot of times people use symbols as keys in a Ruby hash.
What's the advantage over using a string?
E.g.:
hash[:name]
vs.
hash['name']
TL;DR:
Using symbols not only saves time when doing comparisons, but also saves memory, because they are only stored once.
Ruby Symbols are immutable (can't be changed), which makes looking something up much easier
Short(ish) answer:
Using symbols not only saves time when doing comparisons, but also saves memory, because they are only stored once.
Symbols in Ruby are basically "immutable strings" .. that means that they can not be changed, and it implies that the same symbol when referenced many times throughout your source code, is always stored as the same entity, e.g. has the same object id.
a = 'name'
a.object_id
=> 557720
b = 'name'
=> 557740
'name'.object_id
=> 1373460
'name'.object_id
=> 1373480 # !! different entity from the one above
# Ruby assumes any string can change at any point in time,
# therefore treating it as a separate entity
# versus:
:name.object_id
=> 71068
:name.object_id
=> 71068
# the symbol :name is a references to the same unique entity
Strings on the other hand are mutable, they can be changed anytime. This implies that Ruby needs to store each string you mention throughout your source code in it's separate entity, e.g. if you have a string "name" multiple times mentioned in your source code, Ruby needs to store these all in separate String objects, because they might change later on (that's the nature of a Ruby string).
If you use a string as a Hash key, Ruby needs to evaluate the string and look at it's contents (and compute a hash function on that) and compare the result against the (hashed) values of the keys which are already stored in the Hash.
If you use a symbol as a Hash key, it's implicit that it's immutable, so Ruby can basically just do a comparison of the (hash function of the) object-id against the (hashed) object-ids of keys which are already stored in the Hash. (much faster)
Downside:
Each symbol consumes a slot in the Ruby interpreter's symbol-table, which is never released.
Symbols are never garbage-collected.
So a corner-case is when you have a large number of symbols (e.g. auto-generated ones). In that case you should evaluate how this affects the size of your Ruby interpreter (e.g. Ruby can run out of memory and blow up if you generate too many symbols programmatically).
Notes:
If you do string comparisons, Ruby can compare symbols just by comparing their object ids, without having to evaluate them. That's much faster than comparing strings, which need to be evaluated.
If you access a hash, Ruby always applies a hash-function to compute a "hash-key" from whatever key you use. You can imagine something like an MD5-hash. And then Ruby compares those "hashed keys" against each other.
Every time you use a string in your code, a new instance is created - string creation is slower than referencing a symbol.
Starting with Ruby 2.1, when you use frozen strings, Ruby will use the same string object. This avoids having to create new copies of the same string, and they are stored in a space that is garbage collected.
Long answers:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180709094450/http://www.reactive.io/tips/2009/01/11/the-difference-between-ruby-symbols-and-strings
http://www.randomhacks.net.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2007/01/20/13-ways-of-looking-at-a-ruby-symbol/
https://www.rubyguides.com/2016/01/ruby-mutability/
The reason is efficiency, with multiple gains over a String:
Symbols are immutable, so the question "what happens if the key changes?" doesn't need to be asked.
Strings are duplicated in your code and will typically take more space in memory.
Hash lookups must compute the hash of the keys to compare them. This is O(n) for Strings and constant for Symbols.
Moreover, Ruby 1.9 introduced a simplified syntax just for hash with symbols keys (e.g. h.merge(foo: 42, bar: 6)), and Ruby 2.0 has keyword arguments that work only for symbol keys.
Notes:
1) You might be surprised to learn that Ruby treats String keys differently than any other type. Indeed:
s = "foo"
h = {}
h[s] = "bar"
s.upcase!
h.rehash # must be called whenever a key changes!
h[s] # => nil, not "bar"
h.keys
h.keys.first.upcase! # => TypeError: can't modify frozen string
For string keys only, Ruby will use a frozen copy instead of the object itself.
2) The letters "b", "a", and "r" are stored only once for all occurrences of :bar in a program. Before Ruby 2.2, it was a bad idea to constantly create new Symbols that were never reused, as they would remain in the global Symbol lookup table forever. Ruby 2.2 will garbage collect them, so no worries.
3) Actually, computing the hash for a Symbol didn't take any time in Ruby 1.8.x, as the object ID was used directly:
:bar.object_id == :bar.hash # => true in Ruby 1.8.7
In Ruby 1.9.x, this has changed as hashes change from one session to another (including those of Symbols):
:bar.hash # => some number that will be different next time Ruby 1.9 is ran
Re: what's the advantage over using a string?
Styling: its the Ruby-way
(Very) slightly faster value look ups since hashing a symbol is equivalent to hashing an integer vs hashing a string.
Disadvantage: consumes a slot in the program's symbol table that is never released.
I'd be very interested in a follow-up regarding frozen strings introduced in Ruby 2.x.
When you deal with numerous strings coming from a text input (I'm thinking of HTTP params or payload, through Rack, for example), it's way easier to use strings everywhere.
When you deal with dozens of them but they never change (if they're your business "vocabulary"), I like to think that freezing them can make a difference. I haven't done any benchmark yet, but I guess it would be close the symbols performance.
So while a ruby String is globally unique, a ruby Symbol is not, because it's stored by id somewhere in the background:
http://thoughtsincomputation.com/posts/ruby-symbols-what-are-they
...which means using symbols use less memory, given that you have a specified set of values the symbol can be (you don't want to turn every string of user-entered text into a symbol for example).
My question is, while there is definitely a performance benefit of using symbols, is it worth it in the end? I'm asking because, for example, I write most of my hashes using symbols:
my_hash = {:_id => "123", :key => "value"}
But in the ruby-mongo-driver, all the keys are returned as strings:
mongo_hash = {"_id" => "123", "key" => "value"}
So if I were to use both my hash and the mongo hash the same way, I'd have to do:
mongo_hash = Model.collection.find_one(:key => "value")
#=> {"_id" => "123", "key" => "value"}
mongo_hash.symbolize_keys!
#=> {:_id => "123", :key => "value"}
But that just adds another layer to the application:
Create a bunch of strings for the keys in memory.
Now create a symbol for each string (already in memory after the first time this is done).
Now destroy the strings we just created.
It seems like something's wrong there... either everything should be symbols or strings, there shouldn't be conversion back and forth, at least in this case.
What do you think about this? Is this okay? Is this even a problem, or is the ruby garbage collector and all that (haven't gone there yet) okay with this?
Unless you're seriously pushing the constraints of your server/system, the benefits or drawbacks of either method are going to be negligible.
When using a library that absolutely requires that you give it a string-keyed hash, it is obviously better to simply use strings, as it keeps your code clear and concise, and eliminates the need for you to cast the keys to strings.
Ruby aims to make programming more enjoyable for the developer, and makes no claim to be the most efficient. When I use Ruby, I take this to heart and use Symbols for the keys in my hashes simply because it makes them easier to read.
When it comes down to it, it's personal preference, and you won't notice a speed increase/decrease either way. Unless you're running into speed/memory constraint issues, you've got nothing to worry about. Other parts of the Ruby standard library will begin to fall apart before this becomes an issue.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" -- Donald Knuth
What is the function of symbol in ruby? what's difference between string and symbol?
Why is it not a good idea to dynamically create a lot of symbols?
Symbols are like strings but they are immutable - they can't be modified.
They are only put into memory once, making them very efficient to use for things like keys in hashes but they stay in memory until the program exits. This makes them a memory hog if you misuse them.
If you dynamically create lots of symbols, you are allocating a lot of memory that can't be freed until your program ends (edit: this is no longer the case since Ruby 2.2). You should only dynamically create symbols (using string.to_sym) if you know you will:
need to repeatedly access the symbol
not need to modify them
As I said earlier, they are useful for things like hashes - where you care more about the identity of the variable than its value. Symbols, when correctly used, are a readable and efficient way to pass around identity.
I will explain what I mean about the immutability of symbols RE your comment.
Strings are like arrays; they can be modified in place:
12:17:44 ~$ irb
irb(main):001:0> string = "Hello World!"
=> "Hello World!"
irb(main):002:0> string[5] = 'z'
=> "z"
irb(main):003:0> string
=> "HellozWorld!"
irb(main):004:0>
Symbols are more like numbers; they can't be edited in place:
irb(main):011:0> symbol = :Hello_World
=> :Hello_World
irb(main):012:0> symbol[5] = 'z'
NoMethodError: undefined method `[]=' for :Hello_World:Symbol
from (irb):12
from :0
A symbol is the same object and the same allocation of memory no matter where it is used:
>> :hello.object_id
=> 331068
>> a = :hello
=> :hello
>> a.object_id
=> 331068
>> b = :hello
=> :hello
>> b.object_id
=> 331068
>> a = "hello"
=> "hello"
>> a.object_id
=> 2149256980
>> b = "hello"
=> "hello"
>> b.object_id
=> 2149235120
>> b = "hell" + "o"
Two strings which are 'the same' in that they contain the same characters may not reference the same memory, which can be inefficient if you're using strings for, say, hashes.
So, symbols can be useful for reducing memory overhead. However - they are a memory leak waiting to happen, because symbols cannot be garbage collected once created. Creating thousands and thousands of symbols would allocate the memory and not be recoverable. Yikes!
It can be particularly bad to create symbols from user input without validating the input against some kind of a white-list (for example, for query string parameters in RoR). If user input is converted to symbols without validation, a malicious user can cause your program to consume large amounts of memory that will never be garbage collected.
Bad (a symbol is created regardless of user input):
name = params[:name].to_sym
Good (a symbol is only created if the user input is allowed):
whitelist = ['allowed_value', 'another_allowed_value']
raise ArgumentError unless whitelist.include?(params[:name])
name = params[:name].to_sym
Starting Ruby 2.2 and above Symbols are automatically garbage collected and so this should not be an issue.
If you are using Ruby 2.2.0 or later, it should usually be OK to dynamically create a lot of symbols, because they will be garbage collected according to the Ruby 2.2.0-preview1 announcement, which has a link to more details about the new symbol GC. However, if you pass your dynamic symbols to some kind of code that converts it to an ID (an internal Ruby implementation concept used in the C source code), then in that case it will get pinned and never get garbage collected. I'm not sure how commonly that happens.
You can think of symbols as a name of something, and strings (roughly) as a sequence of characters. In many cases you could use either a symbol or a string, or you could use a mixture of the two. Symbols are immutable, which means they can't be changed after being created. The way symbols are implemented, it is very efficient to compare two symbols to see if they are equal, so using them as keys to hashes should be a little faster than using strings. Symbols don't have a lot the methods that strings do, such as start_with? so you would have to use to_s to convert the symbol into a string before calling those methods.
You can read more about symbols here in the documentation:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.3/Symbol.html