upb VS Apache Arrow

> There are undeniably power users for whom every last bit of performance translates to very large sums of money, and I don’t claim to know how to satisfy them otherwise.

That is the key, right there.

In 1970, C may have been considered a general-purpose programming langauge. Today, given the landscape of languages currently available, C and C++ have a much more niche role. They are appropriate for the "power users" described above, who need every last bit of performance, at the cost of more development effort.

When I'm working in C, I'm frequently watching the assembly language output closely, making sure that I'm getting the optimizations I expect. I frequently find missed optimization bugs in compilers. In these scenarios, undefined behavior is a tool that can actually help achieve my goal. The question I'm always asking myself is: what do I have to write in C to get the assembly language output I expect? Here is an example of such a journey: https://blog.reverberate.org/2021/04/21/musttail-efficient-i...

I created the https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb project a long time ago. It's written in C, and over the years I have gotten it to a state where the speed and code size are pretty compelling. Both speed and code size are very important to the use cases where it is being used. It's a relatively small code base also. I think focused, performance-oriented kernels are the area where C makes the most sense.

More and more languages are being built on top of the "upb" C library for protobuf (https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb) which is designed around arenas to avoid this very problem.

Currently Ruby, PHP, and Python are backed by upb, but this list may expand in the future.

Lua uses "chained scatter" (linked list, but links point to other entries in the same table, to maintain locality): https://github.com/lua/lua/blob/master/ltable.c

This is a good visual depiction of chained scatter: https://book.huihoo.com/data-structures-and-algorithms-with-...

Inspired by Lua, I did the same for upb (https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb). I recently benchmarked upb's table vs SwissTable for a string-keyed table and found I was beating it in both insert and lookup (in insert upb is beating SwissTable by 2x).

> But yes, the serialized dict-of-arrays-of-dicts type stuff can be approached in a few ways, none of which are particularly beautiful.

For what it's worth, this sounds somewhat similar to protobuf (which also supports dicts, arrays, etc).

After spending many years trying to figure out the smallest, fastest, and simplest way to implement protobuf in https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb, the single best improvement I found was to make the entire memory management model arena-based.

When you parse an incoming request, all the little objects (messages, arrays, maps, etc) are allocated on the arena. When you are done with it, you just free the arena.

In my experience this results in code that is both simpler and faster than trying to memory-manage all of the sub-objects independently. It also integrates nicely with existing memory-management schemes: I've been able to adapt the arena model to both Ruby (tracing GC) and PHP (refcounting) runtimes. You just have to make sure that the arena itself outlives any reference to any of the objects within.

> Google's implementations, at least C++ and Java, are a bunch of bloated crap (or maybe they're very good, but for a use case that I haven't yet encountered).

As someone who has been working on protobuf-related things for >10 years, including creating a size-focused implementation (https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb), and has been working on the protobuf team for >5 years, I have a few thoughts on this.

I think it is true that protobuf C++ could be a lot more lean than it currently is. That's why I created upb (above) to begin with. But there's also a bit more to this story.

The protobuf core runtime is split into two parts, "lite" and "full". Basically the full runtime contains reflection support, while the lite runtime omits it. The full runtime is much larger than the lite runtime. If you don't need runtime reflection for your protos, it's better to use "lite" by using "option optimize_for = LITE_RUNTIME" in your .proto file (https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#op...). That will cut out a huge amount of overhead in your binary. On the downside, you won't get functionality that requires reflection, including text format, JSON, or DebugString().

In addition to this, even the lite runtime can get "lighter" if you compile your binary to statically link the runtime and strip unused symbols with -ffunction-sections/-fdata-sections and gc-sections in the linker. Some parts of the lite runtime are only used in unusual situations, like ExtensionSet which is only used if your protos use proto2 extensions (https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#ex...). If you avoid this stuff, the lite runtime is quite light.

However, there is also the issue of the generated code size. The size of the generated code is generally quite large, even for lite. You are getting a generated parser, serializer, CopyFrom(), MergeFrom(), etc for every message you define. If your schema is of any size, this quickly adds up and can dwarf the size of the actual runtime. For this reason, C++ also supports "option optimize_for = CODE_SIZE" which does everything reflectively instead of generating code. This means you pay the fixed size hit from the full runtime, but the generated code size is much smaller. On the downside, "optimize_for = CODE_SIZE" has a severe speed penalty.

I have long had the goal of making https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb competitive with protobuf C++ in speed while achieving much smaller code size. With the benefit of 10 years of hindsight and many wrong turns, upb is meeting and even surpassing these goals. It is an order of magnitude smaller, both in the core runtime and the generated code, and after some recent experiments it is beginning to significantly surpass it in speed also (I want to publish these results soon, but the code is on this branch: https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb/pull/310).

upb has downsides that prevent it from being fully "user ready" yet: the API is still not 100% stable, there is no C++ API for the generated code yet (and C APIs for protobuf are relatively verbose and painful), it has a bunch of legacy APIs sitting around that I am just on the verge of being able to finally delete, and it doesn't support proto2 extensions yet. On the upside, it is 100% conformant on every other protobuf feature, it has full binary and JSON support, it supports reflection if you want it but also lets you omit it for code size savings.

I hope 2021 is a year when I'll be able to publish more about these results, and when upb will be a more viable choice for users who want a smaller protobuf implementation.

In comes Polars: a brand new dataframe library, or how the author Ritchie Vink describes it... a query engine with a dataframe frontend. Polars is built on top of the Arrow memory format and is written in Rust, which is a modern performant and memory-safe systems programming language similar to C/C++.

I learned yesterday about GoLang's assembler https://go.dev/doc/asm - after browsing how arrow is implemented for different languages (my experience is mainly C/C++) - https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/main/go/arrow/math - there are bunch of .S ("asm" files) and I'm still not able to comprehend how these work exactly (I guess it'll take more reading) - it seems very peculiar.

The last time I've used inlined assembly was back in Turbo/Borland Pascal, then bit in Visual Studio (32-bit), until they got disabled. Then did very little gcc with their more strict specification (while the former you had to know how the ABI worked, the latter too - but it was specced out).

Anyway - I wasn't expecting to find this in "Go" :) But I guess you can always start with .go code then produce assembly (-S) then optimize it, or find/hire someone to do it.

One is related to the heritage of being built around the NumPy library, which is great for processing numerical data, but becomes an issue as soon as the data is anything else. Pandas 2.0 has started to bring in Arrow, but it's not yet the standard (you have to opt-in and according to the developers it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future). Also, pandas's Arrow-based features are not yet entirely on par with its NumPy-based features. Polars was built around Arrow from the get go. This makes it very powerful when it comes to exchanging data with other languages and reducing the number of in-memory copying operations, thus leading to better performance.

IMO a good first step would be to use the txr FFI to write a library for Apache arrow: https://arrow.apache.org/

https://www.reddit.com/r/O3DE/comments/rdvxhx/why_python/ :

> Python is used for scripting the editor only, not in-game behaviors.

> For implementing entity behaviors the only out of box ways are C++, ScriptCanvas (visual scripting) or Lua. Python is currently not available for implementing game logic.

C++, Lua, and Python all implement CFFI (C Foreign Function Interface) for remote function and method calls.

"Using CFFI for embedding" https://cffi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/embedding.html :

> You can use CFFI to generate C code which exports the API of your choice to any C application that wants to link with this C code. This API, which you define yourself, ends up as the API of a .so/.dll/.dylib library—or you can statically link it within a larger application.

Apache Arrow already supports C, C++, Python, Rust, Go and has C GLib support Lua:

https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/main/c_glib/example/lua :

> Arrow Lua example: All example codes use LGI to use Arrow GLib based bindings

pyarrow.from_numpy_dtype:

AWS Data Wrangler is a Python library that simplifies the process of interacting with various AWS services, built on top of some useful data tools and open-source projects such as Pandas, Apache Arrow and Boto3. It offers streamlined functions to connect to, retrieve, transform, and load data from AWS services, with a strong focus on Amazon S3.

Worker should really adopt Apache Arrow, which has a much bigger ecosystem.

https://github.com/apache/arrow

Apache Arrow

I am aware of the fact that there are other posts about this issue but none of the ideas to solve it worked for me or sometimes none were found. The issue was discussed in the wheel git hub last December and seems to be solved but then it seems like I'm installing the wrong version? I simply used pip3 install pyarrow, is that wrong?