countwords
parallel-hashmap
Our great sponsors
countwords | parallel-hashmap | |
---|---|---|
43 | 31 | |
209 | 2,307 | |
- | - | |
5.9 | 7.6 | |
about 2 years ago | 19 days ago | |
Rust | C++ | |
MIT License | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
countwords
-
How fast is really ASP.NET Core?
"dang, I didn't know that was 50x faster than the idiomatic way" or "hey, I didn't know that this implementation in the stdlib prioritized this over that and made this so slow, that's interesting" -- .e.g, there's some kinda neat language details to be found in something like Ben Hoyt's community word count benchmarks repo and 'simple' vs 'optimal' code: https://github.com/benhoyt/countwords
-
Correct name for word matching problem
It benchmarks programs that count the total number of unique words in some input. It's not exactly equivalent to your problem, but it's similarish. All of the programs used some kind of hash map for lookups, but I contributed a program that used a trie. Its performance in my experience varies depending on the CPU interestingly enough. On my old CPU (i7-6900K) it was a little slower, but on my new cpu (i9-12900KS) it was faster.
-
Performance comparison: counting words in Python, C/C++, Awk, Rust, and more
Why not read the source code? :-)
I wrote comments explaining things: https://github.com/benhoyt/countwords/blob/8553c8f600c40a462...
-
do you guys prefer functional programming style when using rust?
My own code example of a drastic speed up (~25%) simply replacing a couple of for loops with iters: https://github.com/benhoyt/countwords/pull/115
- Ripen scripting engine (Similar to RetroForth, but tiny)
- Performance comparison: counting words in Python, Go, C++, C, AWK, Forth, and Rust
-
The difference between Go and Rust
And yet Go was faster than Rust in a simple app that count words: https://benhoyt.com/writings/count-words/
-
How to Rapidly Improve at Any Programming Language
> but the performance profiles & characteristics that we must know about in order to make a choice on which tool to use. And it shouldn't be that each user has to figure it out on their own, dig into PR's or whatever.
That's an interesting take – I like the idea of a catalog of standard tasks with implementations in several languages as well as their performance characteristics. I suppose Rosetta Code gets the ball rolling with this, but it's missing some performance metrics. It reminds me of [Ben Hoyt's piece](https://benhoyt.com/writings/count-words/) on counting unique words in the KJV Bible in different languages.
-
Faster string keyed maps in Go
This article shows that map lookups can be optimized by using the (unintuitive) pattern:
- Go beats out several top languages including Rust in this performance matchup
parallel-hashmap
-
The One Billion Row Challenge in CUDA: from 17 minutes to 17 seconds
Standard library maps/unordered_maps are themselves notoriously slow anyway. A sparse_hash_map from abseil or parallel-hashmaps[1] would be better.
[1] https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap
-
My own Concurrent Hash Map picks
Cool! Looking forward to you trying my phmap - and please let me know if you have any question.
-
Boost 1.81 will have boost::unordered_flat_map...
I do this as well in my phmap and gtl implementations. It makes the tables look worse in benchmarks like the above, but prevents really bad surprises occasionally.
-
Comprehensive C++ Hashmap Benchmarks 2022
Thanks a lot for the great benchmark, Martin. Glad you used different hash functions, because I do sacrifice some speed to make sure that the performance of my hash maps doesn't degrade drastically with poor hash functions. Happy to see that my phmap and gtl (the C++20 version) performed well.
-
Can C++ maps be as efficient as Python dictionaries ?
I use https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap when I need better performance of maps and sets.
-
How to build a Chess Engine, an interactive guide
Then they should really try https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap, the current state of the art.
-
boost::unordered map is a new king of data structures
Unordered hash map shootout CMAP = https://github.com/tylov/STC KMAP = https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib PMAP = https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap FMAP = https://github.com/skarupke/flat_hash_map RMAP = https://github.com/martinus/robin-hood-hashing HMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/hopscotch-map TMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/robin-map UMAP = std::unordered_map Usage: shootout [n-million=40 key-bits=25] Random keys are in range [0, 2^25). Seed = 1656617916: T1: Insert/update random keys: KMAP: time: 1.949, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 CMAP: time: 1.649, size: 15064129, buckets: 22145833, sum: 165525449561381 PMAP: time: 2.434, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 FMAP: time: 2.112, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 RMAP: time: 1.708, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 HMAP: time: 2.054, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 TMAP: time: 1.645, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 UMAP: time: 6.313, size: 15064129, buckets: 31160981, sum: 165525449561381 T2: Insert sequential keys, then remove them in same order: KMAP: time: 1.173, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 CMAP: time: 1.651, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 20000000 PMAP: time: 3.840, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 FMAP: time: 1.722, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 RMAP: time: 2.359, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 HMAP: time: 0.849, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 TMAP: time: 0.660, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 UMAP: time: 2.138, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 20000000 T3: Remove random keys: KMAP: time: 1.973, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 CMAP: time: 2.020, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 23367671 PMAP: time: 2.940, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 FMAP: time: 1.147, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 RMAP: time: 1.941, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 HMAP: time: 1.135, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 TMAP: time: 1.064, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 UMAP: time: 5.632, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 23367671 T4: Iterate random keys: KMAP: time: 0.748, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 CMAP: time: 0.627, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 PMAP: time: 0.680, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 FMAP: time: 0.735, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 RMAP: time: 0.464, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 HMAP: time: 0.719, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 TMAP: time: 0.662, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 UMAP: time: 6.168, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 T5: Lookup random keys: KMAP: time: 0.943, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 CMAP: time: 0.863, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 PMAP: time: 1.635, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 FMAP: time: 0.969, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 RMAP: time: 1.705, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 HMAP: time: 0.712, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 TMAP: time: 0.584, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 UMAP: time: 1.974, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438
-
Is A* just always slow?
std::unordered_map is notorious for being slow. Use a better implementation (I like the flat naps from here, which are the same as abseil’s). The question that needs to be asked too is if you need to use a map.
-
New Boost.Unordered containers have BIG improvements!
A comparison against phmap would also be nice.
-
How to implement static typing in a C++ bytecode VM?
std::unordered_map is perfectly fine. You can do better with external libraries, like parallel hashmap, but these tend to be drop-in replacements
What are some alternatives?
CPython - The Python programming language
Folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook.
coreutils - upstream mirror
robin-hood-hashing - Fast & memory efficient hashtable based on robin hood hashing for C++11/14/17/20
llfio - P1031 low level file i/o and filesystem library for the C++ standard
libcuckoo - A high-performance, concurrent hash table
securitytxt.org - Static website for security.txt.
rust-phf - Compile time static maps for Rust
wyhash - The FASTEST QUALITY hash function, random number generators (PRNG) and hash map.
flat_hash_map - A very fast hashtable
leocad - A CAD application for creating virtual LEGO models
tracy - Frame profiler