A collection of random benchmarks, for answering questions I have about which way to do a thing is faster.
Run $ mix bench [something]_bench.exs from the root directory
Note that I've run all these tests using a version of Erlang/OTP with the JIT (v24+ on Intel, v25+ on ARM).
## ListComprehensionBench
benchmark name iterations average time
Evens using `for` comprehension with inline test 10000 145.34 µs/op
Evens using `for` comprehension with named function 10000 174.75 µs/op
Evens using `Enum` with anonymous function 10000 193.00 µs/op
Evens using `Enum` with named function 10000 194.82 µs/op
String.downcase/1 wins.
## CaseInsensitiveStringCompareBench
benchmark name iterations average time
Downcase (Small, Equal) 5000 3866.55 µs/op
Downcase (Small, Not equal) 5000 5083.07 µs/op
Regex (Small, Not matching) 5000 6068.93 µs/op
Regex (Small, Matching) 5000 7021.87 µs/op
This one does a little more than filtering (on the assumption that this isn't the final step in your pipeline... if you're considering Stream, you probably still have to do something with it at the end).
## StreamBench
benchmark name iterations average time
Filter a list using Enum 100000 151.99 µs/op
Filter a list using Stream 100000 179.55 µs/op
Filter a range using Enum 100000 103.00 µs/op
Filter a range using Stream 100000 179.51 µs/op
If your data is cheap to generate, it makes roughly no difference whether you use a generator versus an iolist. A binary may be a tiny, tiny bit slower, but the actual time to write the log massively dominates those differences.
## Loggerbench
benchmark name iterations average time
Skipping logging using a straight iolist 50000 59.60 µs/op
Skipping logging using an iolist message generator 50000 59.91 µs/op
Skipping logging using a binary 50000 60.15 µs/op
Logging using an iolist message generator 50 32229.96 µs/op
Logging using a straight iolist 50 32782.38 µs/op
Logging using a binary 100 33229.38 µs/op
For large geometry collections, it looks like doing a Float.round/2 on each
of the coordinates has a smaller impact on the serialization time than I expected.
(JIT FTW!)
## GeometryCoordinateRoundingBench
benchmark name iterations average time
Serializing the geometry as-is 1 1434005.00 µs/op
Rounding the coordinates to 6 digits 1 2914367.00 µs/op
This algorithm comes from the Swift standard library.
Interestingly, the for comprehension is way faster here. I have no explanation for why :lists.filtermap/2 is so much slower without the function capture, but I've rewritten that benchmark a half dozen different ways and keep getting the same results.
## MapCompactBench
benchmark name iterations average time
For comprehension removing nil values without function capture 500000 137.33 µs/op
For comprehension removing nil values with function capture 500000 149.56 µs/op
:lists.filtermap with function capture 200000 250.37 µs/op
Flat map + List.wrap 100000 342.46 µs/op
Map + reject 100000 346.86 µs/op
:lists.filtermap without function capture 100000 427.62 µs/op
:lists.filtermap is bizarrely slow here...
## FilterMapBench
benchmark name iterations average time
For comprehension removing odd values without function capture 500000 54.17 µs/op
For comprehension removing odd values with function capture 500000 54.61 µs/op
Map + filter 200000 83.09 µs/op
:lists.filtermap without function capture 100000 164.92 µs/op
:lists.filtermap with function capture 100000 166.64 µs/op
A test of deduplicating a large-ish list of maps. The "many duplicates" cases are 20k elements, half of which are duplicates; "single duplicate" cases are 10,0001 elements, one of which is a duplicate.
## DeduplicationBench
benchmark name iterations average time
MapSet (single duplicate) 1000 1295.47 µs/op
MapSet back to list (single duplicate) 1000 1551.90 µs/op
Enum.uniq/1 (single duplicate) 1000 2953.91 µs/op
MapSet (many duplicates) 500 3327.55 µs/op
Enum.uniq/1 (many duplicates) 500 3874.74 µs/op
MapSet back to list (many duplicates) 500 3908.37 µs/op
Here's the same test, but with a list of 200k elements (100k unique) in the "many duplicates" case and 100,001 for the single duplicate case.
## DeduplicationBench
benchmark name iterations average time
MapSet (single duplicate) 100 16981.94 µs/op
MapSet back to list (single duplicate) 100 20836.07 µs/op
MapSet (many duplicates) 50 46885.00 µs/op
Enum.uniq/1 (single duplicate) 50 47161.16 µs/op
MapSet back to list (many duplicates) 50 53378.28 µs/op
Enum.uniq/1 (many duplicates) 50 65725.54 µs/op
My takeaway: MapSet excels, by more than a factor of 2, when there are few duplicates. When there are many duplicates, or when you're going to need to convert the MapSet back to a list anyway (as you might need in an Ecto query), the gap shrinks or is eliminated.
This is a test of ordering an enum where the parts that match a given predicate all come before
the parts that do not. This is similar to a C++ std::partition(), but without returning the partition point.
The split + join version is quite a bit faster.
## PrioritizeBench
benchmark name iterations average time
Split + join (shuffled) 10000 286.33 µs/op
Split + join (ordered) 10000 286.71 µs/op
Sort (shuffled) 5000 683.37 µs/op
Sort (ordered) 5000 685.87 µs/op