The obvious difference between boxed and unboxed arrays is that the
boxed arrays are full of pointers to heap allocated objects. This
means you pay indirection to access the values, much more time in GC
spent chasing pointers (though card marking helps), and generally do
more allocation.
Compare the GC stats below, for
* Boxed vector: 88M bytes copied; 75% of time in GC, 0.472s
* Unboxed vector: 11k bytes copied, 1.3% of time in GC, 0.077s
So there's your main answer. The increased data density of unboxed
arrays also helps a too.
Now, you can help out the GC signifcantly by hinting at how much
you're going to allocated in the youngest generation (see the
ghc-gc-tune app for a methodical approach to this, though it needs
updating to ghc 7 --
http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/ghc-gc-tune-tuning-haskell-gc-settin...
and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3171922/ghcs-rts-options-for-garbage-coll...
).
Use the +RTS -A flag to set an initial youngest generation heap size
to the size of your array, and watch the GC cost disappear. For our
boxed vector, we'd use +RTS -A50M, resulting in:
* Boxed vector: 8k copied, 1% of time in GC, 0.157s
So not bad. 3x speedup through a RTS flag. -A is very useful if you
are working with boxed, mutable arrays.
For reference, there's a generic version below that specializes based
on the vector type parameter.
---------------------------------
{-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-}
import System.CPUTime
import Text.Printf
import Data.Int
import Control.DeepSeq
import System.Mem
import qualified Data.Vector.Mutable as V
import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed.Mutable as U
import qualified Data.Vector.Generic.Mutable as G
main :: IO()
main = do
-- (G.new n' :: IO (V.IOVector Int32)) >>= test' "boxed vector"
-- performGC
(G.new n' :: IO (U.IOVector Int32)) >>= test' "unboxed vector"
performGC
test' s a = do
putStrLn s
begin <- getCPUTime
init'' a
partial_sum' a
end <- getCPUTime
let diff = (fromIntegral (end - begin)) / (10**12)
last <- G.read a (n'-1)
printf "last %d seconds %.3f\n" last (diff::Double)
n' :: Int
n' = 1000 * 1000
init'' !a = init 0 (n'-1)
where
init :: Int -> Int -> IO ()
init !k !n
| k > n = return ()
| otherwise = do
let !x = fromIntegral $ k + k `div` 3
G.write a k x
init (k+1) n
partial_sum' !a = do
k <- G.read a 0
ps 1 (n'-1) k
where
ps :: Int -> Int -> Int32 -> IO ()
ps i n s
| i > n = return ()
| otherwise = do
k <- G.read a i
let !l = fromIntegral $ s + k
G.write a i l
ps (i+1) n l
---------------------------------
$ time ./A +RTS -s
boxed vector
last 945735787 seconds 0.420
40,121,448 bytes allocated in the heap
88,355,272 bytes copied during GC
24,036,456 bytes maximum residency (6 sample(s))
380,632 bytes maximum slop
54 MB total memory in use (0 MB lost due to fragmentation)
%GC time 75.2% (75.9% elapsed)
Alloc rate 359,655,602 bytes per MUT second
./A +RTS -s 0.40s user 0.07s system 98% cpu 0.475 total
$ time ./A +RTS -s
unboxed vector
last 945735787 seconds 0.080
4,113,568 bytes allocated in the heap
11,288 bytes copied during GC
4,003,256 bytes maximum residency (3 sample(s))
182,856 bytes maximum slop
5 MB total memory in use (0 MB lost due to fragmentation)
%GC time 1.3% (1.3% elapsed)
Alloc rate 51,416,660 bytes per MUT second
./A +RTS -s 0.08s user 0.01s system 98% cpu 0.088 total
$ time ./A +RTS -A50M -s
boxed vector
last 945735787 seconds 0.127
40,121,504 bytes allocated in the heap
8,032 bytes copied during GC
44,704 bytes maximum residency (2 sample(s))
20,832 bytes maximum slop
59 MB total memory in use (0 MB lost due to fragmentation)
%GC time 1.0% (1.0% elapsed)
Productivity 97.4% of total user, 99.6% of total elapsed
./A +RTS -A50M -s 0.10s user 0.05s system 97% cpu 0.157 total
---------------------------------
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Branimir Maksimovic
I have made benchmark test inspired by http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2012/07/23/is-cc-worth-it/
What surprised me is that unboxed array is much faster than boxed array. Actually boxed array performance is on par with standard Haskell list which is very slow. All in all even unboxed array is about 10 times slower than Java version. I don't understand why is even unboxed array so slow. But! unboxed array consumes least amount of RAM. (warning, program consumes more than 3gb of ram)
bmaxa@maxa:~/examples$ time ./Cumul boxed array last 262486571 seconds 4.972 unboxed array last 262486571 seconds 0.776 list last 262486571 seconds 6.812
real 0m13.086s user 0m11.996s sys 0m1.080s
------------------------------------------------------------------------- {-# LANGUAGE CPP, BangPatterns #-} import System.CPUTime import Text.Printf import Data.Array.IO import Data.Array.Base import Data.Int import Control.DeepSeq import System.Mem
main :: IO() main = do (newArray_ (0,n'-1) :: IO(A)) >>= test "boxed array" performGC (newArray_ (0,n'-1) :: IO(B)) >>= test "unboxed array" performGC begin <- getCPUTime printf "list\nlast %d" $ last $ force $ take n' $ sum' data' end <- getCPUTime let diff = (fromIntegral (end - begin)) / (10^12) printf " seconds %.3f\n" (diff::Double)
test s a = do putStrLn s begin <- getCPUTime init' a partial_sum a end <- getCPUTime let diff = (fromIntegral (end - begin)) / (10^12) last <- readArray a (n'-1) printf "last %d seconds %.3f\n" last (diff::Double)
n' :: Int n' = 50 * 1000 * 1000
type A = IOArray Int Int32 type B = IOUArray Int Int32
init' a = do (_,n) <- getBounds a init a 0 n where init a k n | k > n = return () | otherwise = do let !x = fromIntegral $ k + k `div` 3 unsafeWrite a k x init a (k+1) n
partial_sum a = do (_,n) <- getBounds a k <- unsafeRead a 0 ps a 1 n k where ps a i n s | i > n = return () | otherwise = do k <- unsafeRead a i let !l = fromIntegral $ s + k unsafeWrite a i l ps a (i+1) n l
data' :: [Int32] data' = [k + k `div` 3 | k <- [0..] ]
sum' = scanl1 (+)
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe