I'm currently building a small application is Vanilla JS (without any dependencies like lodash/jquery) and I needed to compare two objects to check for equality in keys and values. I was just wondering about how to optimize this problem.
The keys of both objects are in the same order as they are derived from the same method. According to this answer, the fastest and most efficient way to do this is using JSON.stringify(object1) === JSON.stringify(object2).
However, in my app, if the two objects are not equal, then I loop through the two of them and perform some operations. The problem is that these operations are pretty performance heavy and run occasionally. I need to optimize my solution.
Therefore, I was wondering if JSON.stringify runs some sort of for loop internally as well. In my application, it is more likely for the two objects to be unequal. Therefore, if JSON.stringify also runs some sort of for loop, I could just remove the check and run the operations I need right away (which will only cause a difference in the program if the two objects are unequal) saving time and making it more optimized. If I don't do this, then I will technically be running two for loops for the exact same purpose when the two objects are unequal and running one for loop either way when the two objects are equal. If JSON.stringify is some sort of for loop internally, then I can just one for loop no matter if the objects are equal. Am I making sense here? Please let me know if you don't understand something. Is this check useless and should I remove it to optimize my code?
Your question touches 4 different areas:
The implementation (and thus performance) of JSON.stringify
The implementation (and thus performance) of object iteration
The quality and performance of the JIT compiler
The speed of memory allocation (JSON.stringify is a memory hog for big objects)
So it is quite clear, that there is now "Universal" answer for all JS engines and OSes.
I recommend you do checks your in code ... why?
While right now the order of attributes might be constant, future maintenance to your codebase might change that and introduce a hard to track down bug.
It is good practice to create an isEqual method for all object types you use
It is better readable.
Ofcourse there are also disadvantages:
Your code will become bigger (this might be linked to better readable)
ANything else I might have forgotten.
Related
JavaScript provides a variety of data structures to be used ranging from simple objects over arrays, sets, maps, the weak variants as well as ArrayBuffers.
Over the half past year I found myself in the spot to recreate some of the more common structures like Dequeues, count maps and mostly different variants of trees.
While looking at the Ecma specification I could not find a description on how arrays implemented on a memory level, supposedly this is up to the underlying engine?
Contrary to languages I am used to, arrays in JavaScript have a variable length, similar to list. Does that mean that elements are not necessarily aligned next to each other in memory? Does a splice push and pop actually result in new allocation if a certain threshold is reached, similar to for example ArrayLists in Java? I am wondering if arrays are the way to go for queues and stacks or if actual list implementations with references to the next element might be suited in JavaScript in some cases (e.g. regarding overhead opposed to the native implementation of arrays?).
If someone has some more in-depth literature, please feel encouraged to link them here.
While looking at the Ecma specification I could not find a description on how arrays implemented on a memory level, supposedly this is up to the underlying engine?
The ECMAScript specification does not specify or require a specific implementation. That is up to the engine that implements the array to decide how best to store the data.
Arrays in the V8 engine have multiple forms based on how the array is being used. A sequential array with no holes that contains only one data type is highly optimized into something similar to an array in C++. But, if it contains mixed types or if it contains holes (blocks of the array with no value - often called a sparse array), it would have an entirely different implementation structure. And, as you can imagine it may be dynamically changed from one implementation type to another if the data in the array changes to make it incompatible with its current optimized form.
Since arrays have indexed, random access, they are not implemented as linked lists internally which don't have an efficient way to do random, indexed access.
Growing an array may require reallocating a larger block of memory and copying the existing array into it. Calling something like .splice() to remove items will have to copy portions of the array down to the lower position.
Whether or not it makes more sense to use your own linked list implementation for a queue instead of an array depends upon a bunch of things. If the queue gets very large, then it may be faster to deal with the individual allocations of a list so avoid having to copy large portions of the queue around in order to manipulate it. If the queue never gets very large, then the overhead of a moving data in an array is small and the extra complication of a linked list and the extra allocations involved in it may not be worth it.
As an extreme example, if you had a very large FIFO queue, it would not be particularly optimal as an array because you'd be adding items at one end and removing items from the other end which would require copying the entire array down to insert or remove an item from the bottom end and if the length changed regularly, the engine would probably regularly have to reallocate too. Whether or not that copying overhead was relevant in your app or not would need to be tested with an actual performance test to see if it was worth doing something about.
But, if your queue was always entirely the same data type and never had any holes in it, then V8 can optimize it to a C++ style block of memory and when calling .splice() on that to remove an item can be highly optimized (using CPU block move instructions) which can be very, very fast. So, you'd really have to test to decide if it was worth trying to further optimize beyond an array.
Here's a very good talk on how V8 stores and optimizes arrays:
Elements Kinds in V8
Here are some other reference articles on the topic:
How do JavaScript arrays work under the hood
V8 array source code
Performance tips in V8
How does V8 optimize large arrays
I'm using a Dictionary (associative array, hash table, any of these synonyms).
The keys used to uniquely identify values are fairly long strings. However, I know that these strings tend to differ at the tail, rather than the head.
The fastest way to find a value in a JS object is to test the existence of
object[key], but is that also the case for extremely long, largely similar, keys (+100 chars), in a fairly large Dictionary (+1000 entries)?
Are there alternatives for this case, or is this a completely moot question, because accessing values by key is already insanely fast?
Long story short; It doesn't matter much. JS will internally use a hash table (as you already said yourself), so it will need to calculate a hash of your keys for insertion and (in some cases) for accessing elements.
Calculating a hash (for most reasonable hash functions) will take slightly longer for long keys than for short keys (I would guess about linearly longer), but it doesn't matter whether the changes are at the tail or at the head.
You could decide to roll your own hashes instead, cache these somehow, and use these as keys, but this would leave it up to you to deal with hash collisions. It will be very hard to do better than the default implementation, and is almost certainly not worth the trouble.
Moreover, for an associative array with only 1000 elements, probably none of this matters. Modern CPUs can process close to / around billions of instructions per second. Even just a lineair search through the whole array will likely perform just fine, unless you have to do it very very often.
Hash tables (dictionary, map, etc.) first check for hash code, and only then, if necessary (in case of collision - at least two keys have the same hash code) perform equals. If you experience performance problems, the first thing you have to check, IMHO, is hash codes collision. It may appear (bad implementation or weird keys) that the hash code is computed on, say, 3 first chars (it's a wild exaggeration, of course):
"abc123".hashCode() ==
"abc456".hashCode() ==
...
"abc789".hashCode()
and so you have a lot of collisions, have to perform equals, and finally slow O(N) complexity routine. In that case, you have to think over a better hash.
I'm working on a page that, eventually, could have more than 100 arrays, only a few of which would be used at any given time.
At the moment, I'm populating all arrays as global variables, but I suspect this is inefficient in terms of memory use.
Should I change my code to clear the arrays when they are not being used? If so, what is the best way to do this? I'd guess var myArray = new array() but perhaps there's a better option.
Unless you have many thousands of objects in your arrays, you don't need to worry. Don't prematurely optimize your code; the browser is quite good at handling lots of small objects.
If memory does become an issue or you notice performance issues, you can simply reassign a new array to those variables:
myArray = [];
The garbage collector will clean up the objects that you dereferenced.
In a broader case, if there's no need to keep references to those objects, you don't even need the arrays to begin with. I.e., if you never access the elements that you put in the arrays a second time, just remove the arrays and don't bother assigning the data.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why can't strings be mutable in Java and .NET?
Why .NET String is immutable?
Several languages have chosen for this, such as C#, Java, and Python. If it is intended to save memory or gain efficiency for operations like compare, what effect does it have on concatenation and other modifying operations?
Immutable types are a good thing generally:
They work better for concurrency (you don't need to lock something that can't change!)
They reduce errors: mutable objects are vulnerable to being changed when you don't expect it which can introduce all kinds of strange bugs ("action at a distance")
They can be safely shared (i.e. multiple references to the same object) which can reduce memory consumption and improve cache utilisation.
Sharing also makes copying a very cheap O(1) operation when it would be O(n) if you have to take a defensive copy of a mutable object. This is a big deal because copying is an incredibly common operation (e.g. whenever you want to pass parameters around....)
As a result, it's a pretty reasonable language design choice to make strings immutable.
Some languages (particularly functional languages like Haskell and Clojure) go even further and make pretty much everything immutable. This enlightening video is very much worth a look if you are interested in the benefits of immutability.
There are a couple of minor downsides for immutable types:
Operations that create a changed string like concatenation are more expensive because you need to construct new objects. Typically the cost is O(n+m) for concatenating two immutable Strings, though it can go as low as O(log (m+n)) if you use a tree-based string data structure like a Rope. Plus you can always use special tools like Java's StringBuilder if you really need to concatenate Strings efficiently.
A small change on a large string can result in the need to construct a completely new copy of the large String, which obviously increases memory consumption. Note however that this isn't usually a big issue in garbage-collected languages since the old copy will get garbage collected pretty quickly if you don't keep a reference to it.
Overall though, the advantages of immutability vastly outweigh the minor disadvantages. Even if you are only interested in performance, the concurrency advantages and cheapness of copying will in general make immutable strings much more performant than mutable ones with locking and defensive copying.
It's mainly intended to prevent programming errors. For example, Strings are frequently used as keys in hashtables. If they could change, the hashtable would become corrupted. And that's just one example where having a piece of data change while you're using it causes problems. Security is another: if you checking whether a user is allowed to access a file at a given path before executing the operation they requested, the string containing the path better not be mutable...
It becomes even more important when you're doing multithreading. Immutable data can be safely passed around between threads while mutable data causes endless headaches.
Basically, immutable data makes the code that works on it easier to reason about. Which is why purely functional languages try to keep everything immutable.
In Java not only String but all primitive Wrapper classes (Integer, Double, Character etc) are immutable. I am not sure of the exact reason but I think these are the basic data types on which all the programming schemes work. If they change, things could go wild. To be more specific, I'll use an example: Say you have opened a socket connection to a remote host. The host name would be a String and port would be Integer. What if these values are modified after the connection is established.
As far as performance is concerned, Java allocates memory to these classes from a separate memory section called Literal Pool, and not from stack or Heap. The Literal Pool is indexed and if you use a string "String" twice, they point to the same object from Literal pool.
Having strings as immutable also allows the new string references easy, as the same/similar strings will be readily available from the pool of the Strings previously created. Thereby reducing the cost of new object creation.
Consider this javascript code:
var s = "Some string";
s = "More string";
Will the garbage collector (GC) have work to do after this sort of operation?
(I'm wondering whether I should worry about assigning string literals when trying to minimize GC pauses.)
e: I'm slightly amused that, although I stated explicitly in my question that I needed to minimize GC, everyone assumed I'm wrong about that. If one really must know the particular details: I've got a game in javascript -- it runs fine in Chrome, but in Firefox has semi-frequent pauses, that seem to be due to GC. (I've even checked with the MemChaser extension for Firefox, and the pauses coincide exactly with garbage collection.)
Yes, strings need to be garbage-collected, just like any other type of dynamically allocated object. And yes, this is a valid concern as careless allocation of objects inside busy loops can definitely cause performance issues.
However, string values are immutable (non-changable), and most modern JavaScript implementations use "string interning", that is they store only one instance of each unique string value. This means that if you have something like this...
var s1 = "abc",
s2 = "abc";
...only one instance of "abc" will be allocated. This only applies to string values, not String objects.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
Functions like substring, slice, etc. will allocate a new object for each function call (if called with different parameters).
Even though both variable point to the same data in memory, there are still two variables to process when the GC cycle runs. Having too many local variables can also hurt you as each of them will need to be processed by the GC, adding overhead.
Some further reading on writing high-performance JavaScript:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Memory_Management
https://www.scirra.com/blog/76/how-to-write-low-garbage-real-time-javascript
http://jonraasch.com/blog/10-javascript-performance-boosting-tips-from-nicholas-zakas
Yes, but unless you are doing this in a loop millions of times it won't likely be a factor for you to worry about.
As you already noticed, JavaScript is not JavaScript. It runs on different platforms and thus will have different performance characteristics.
So the definite answer to the question "Will the GC have work to do after this sort of operation?" is: maybe. If the script is as short as you've shown it, then a JIT-Compiler might well drop the first string completely. But there's no rule in the language definition that says it has to be that way or the other way. So in the end it's like it is all too often in JavaScript: you have to try it.
The more interesting question might also be: how can you avoid garbage collection. And that is try to minimize the allocation of new objects. Games typically have a pretty constant amount of objects and often there won't be new objects until an old one gets unused. For strings this might be harder as they are immutable in JS. So try to replace strings with other (mutable) representations where possible.
Yes, the garbage collector will have a string object containing "Some string" to get rid of. And, in answer to your question, that string assignment will make work for the GC.
Because strings are immutable and are used a lot, the JS engine has a pretty efficient way of dealing with them. You should not notice any pauses from garbage collecting a few strings. The garbage collector has work to do all the time in the normal course of javascript programming. That's how it's supposed to work.
If you are observing pauses from GC, I rather doubt it's from a few strings. There is more likely a much bigger issue going on. Either you have thousands of objects needing GC or some very complicated task for the GC. We couldn't really speculate on that without study of the overall code.
This should not be a concern unless you were doing some enormous loop and dealing with tens of thousands of objects. In that case, one might want to program a little more carefully to minimize the number of intermediate objects that are created. But, absent that level of objects, you should first right clear, reliable code and then optimize for performance only when something has shown you that there is a performance issue to worry about.
To answer your question "I'm wondering whether I should worry about assigning string literals when trying to minimize GC pauses": No.
You really don't need to worry about this sort of thing with regard to garbage collection.
GC is only a concern when creating & destroying huge numbers of Javascript objects, or large numbers of DOM elements.