Hello,
trying to implement a fast cache, I inadvertently entered a rabbit hole
that led me to implement my own map. In the process I tried to make it
faster than the go map just to see if it is possible. I worked weeks on it
trying out various architectures and methods.
On my mac book air M2, I get the following benchmarks for a Get operation.
The numbers are the number of items inserted in the table. My keys are 8
byte long strings.
goos: darwin
goarch: arm64
pkg: fastCache/map
cpu: Apple M2
│ dirstr12/stats_arm64.txt │
puremapstr/stats_arm64.txt │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base
│
Cache2Hit/_______1-8 6.151n ± 6% 7.087n ± 1% +15.22%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/______10-8 8.491n ± 0% 8.156n ± 29% ~
(p=0.394 n=6)
Cache2Hit/_____100-8 8.141n ± 7% 14.185n ± 13% +74.24%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/____1000-8 8.252n ± 3% 10.635n ± 39% +28.89%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/___10000-8 10.45n ± 2% 20.99n ± 4% +100.81%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/__100000-8 12.16n ± 1% 19.11n ± 10% +57.05%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/_1000000-8 42.28n ± 2% 47.90n ± 2% +13.29%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/10000000-8 56.38n ± 12% 61.82n ± 6% ~
(p=0.065 n=6)
geomean 13.44n 17.86n +32.91%
On my amd64 i5 11th gen I get the following benchmarks.
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: fastCache/map
cpu: 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-11400 @ 2.60GHz
│ dirstr12/stats_amd64.txt │
puremapstr/stats_amd64.txt │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base
│
Cache2Hit/_______1-12 9.207n ± 1% 7.506n ± 3% -18.48%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/______10-12 9.223n ± 0% 8.806n ± 6% ~
(p=0.058 n=6)
Cache2Hit/_____100-12 9.279n ± 2% 10.175n ± 3% +9.66%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/____1000-12 10.45n ± 2% 11.29n ± 3% +8.04%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/___10000-12 16.00n ± 2% 17.21n ± 5% +7.59%
(p=0.002 n=6)
Cache2Hit/__100000-12 22.20n ± 17% 24.73n ± 22% +11.42%
(p=0.026 n=6)
Cache2Hit/_1000000-12 87.75n ± 2% 91.05n ± 5% +3.76%
(p=0.009 n=6)
Cache2Hit/10000000-12 104.2n ± 2% 105.6n ± 5% ~
(p=0.558 n=6)
geomean 20.11n 20.49n +1.90%
On amd64 the performance is on par with go map, but go map uses inlined
simd instructions which I don’t use because I don’t have access to it in
pure go. I use xxh3 right out of the box for the hash function. The
differences are not due to the hash function.
If there is interest in this, please let me know.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/1ce56ac2-662c-410f-a25a-b0ed09a706a4n%40googlegroups.com.
