feat: speed up compile by map

[wwwzbwcom]

speed up compile by using map instead of array
map is more than 30x faster

const mathFunctionsMap ={abs: true, acos: true, acosh: true, asin: true, asinh: true, atan: true, atan2: true, atanh: true, cbrt: true, ceil: true, clz32: true, cos: true, cosh: true, expm1: true, exp: true, floor: true, fround: true, imul: true, log: true, log2: true, log10: true, log1p: true, max: true, min: true, pow: true, random: true, round: true, sign: true, sin: true, sinh: true, sqrt: true, tan: true, tanh: true, trunc: true, }; function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast){return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast]} function isAstMathFunctionList(ast){const mathFunctions = [ "abs", "acos", "acosh", "asin", "asinh", "atan", "atan2", "atanh", "cbrt", "ceil", "clz32", "cos", "cosh", "expm1", "exp", "floor", "fround", "imul", "log", "log2", "log10", "log1p", "max", "min", "pow", "random", "round", "sign", "sin", "sinh", "sqrt", "tan", "tanh", "trunc", ]; return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1} console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap"); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("")); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc")); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionMap("trunc") } console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap"); console.time("isAstMathFunctionList"); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionList("trunc")} console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList"); /* isAstMathFunctionMap: 75.357ms isAstMathFunctionList: 3.747s */ 

[harshkhandeparkar]

It's taking longer because you are defining the array in each call. If the array is a constant, the array is actually faster.

[wwwzbwcom]

@harshkhandeparkar This doesnt affect much, array is still much slower:

Also, in the source code we defining array in function, so I do this in the test

const mathFunctionsMap ={abs: true, acos: true, acosh: true, asin: true, asinh: true, atan: true, atan2: true, atanh: true, cbrt: true, ceil: true, clz32: true, cos: true, cosh: true, expm1: true, exp: true, floor: true, fround: true, imul: true, log: true, log2: true, log10: true, log1p: true, max: true, min: true, pow: true, random: true, round: true, sign: true, sin: true, sinh: true, sqrt: true, tan: true, tanh: true, trunc: true, }; function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast){return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast]} const mathFunctions = [ "abs", "acos", "acosh", "asin", "asinh", "atan", "atan2", "atanh", "cbrt", "ceil", "clz32", "cos", "cosh", "expm1", "exp", "floor", "fround", "imul", "log", "log2", "log10", "log1p", "max", "min", "pow", "random", "round", "sign", "sin", "sinh", "sqrt", "tan", "tanh", "trunc", ]; function isAstMathFunctionList(ast){return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1} console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap"); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("")); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc")); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionMap("trunc") } console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap"); console.time("isAstMathFunctionList"); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionList("trunc")} console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList"); /* isAstMathFunctionMap: 66.243ms isAstMathFunctionList: 3.532s */ 

[wwwzbwcom]

Checking the first element by indexOf is also slower:

const mathFunctionsMap ={abs: true, acos: true, acosh: true, asin: true, asinh: true, atan: true, atan2: true, atanh: true, cbrt: true, ceil: true, clz32: true, cos: true, cosh: true, expm1: true, exp: true, floor: true, fround: true, imul: true, log: true, log2: true, log10: true, log1p: true, max: true, min: true, pow: true, random: true, round: true, sign: true, sin: true, sinh: true, sqrt: true, tan: true, tanh: true, trunc: true, }; function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast){return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast]} const mathFunctions = [ "abs", "acos", "acosh", "asin", "asinh", "atan", "atan2", "atanh", "cbrt", "ceil", "clz32", "cos", "cosh", "expm1", "exp", "floor", "fround", "imul", "log", "log2", "log10", "log1p", "max", "min", "pow", "random", "round", "sign", "sin", "sinh", "sqrt", "tan", "tanh", "trunc", ]; function isAstMathFunctionList(ast){return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1} console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap"); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("")); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc")); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionMap("abs") } console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap"); console.time("isAstMathFunctionList"); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionList("abs")} console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList"); /* const mathFunctionsMap ={abs: true, acos: true, acosh: true, asin: true, asinh: true, atan: true, atan2: true, atanh: true, cbrt: true, ceil: true, clz32: true, cos: true, cosh: true, expm1: true, exp: true, floor: true, fround: true, imul: true, log: true, log2: true, log10: true, log1p: true, max: true, min: true, pow: true, random: true, round: true, sign: true, sin: true, sinh: true, sqrt: true, tan: true, tanh: true, trunc: true, }; function isAstMathFunctionMap(ast){return !!mathFunctionsMap[ast]} const mathFunctions = [ "abs", "acos", "acosh", "asin", "asinh", "atan", "atan2", "atanh", "cbrt", "ceil", "clz32", "cos", "cosh", "expm1", "exp", "floor", "fround", "imul", "log", "log2", "log10", "log1p", "max", "min", "pow", "random", "round", "sign", "sin", "sinh", "sqrt", "tan", "tanh", "trunc", ]; function isAstMathFunctionList(ast){return mathFunctions.indexOf(ast) > -1} console.time("isAstMathFunctionMap"); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("")); // console.log(isAstMathFunctionSet("trunc")); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionMap("abs") } console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionMap"); console.time("isAstMathFunctionList"); for (let i = 0; i < 1e8; i++){isAstMathFunctionList("abs")} console.timeEnd("isAstMathFunctionList"); /* isAstMathFunctionMap: 74.071ms isAstMathFunctionList: 375.602ms */ 

[harshkhandeparkar]

I did a little more testing too. I found that using array.includes is much faster than indexOf. And the includes is faster than using an object.

findArrIncludes: 512ms findArrIndexOf: 18376ms findObj: 5201ms findMap: 19002ms 

[harshkhandeparkar]

I used 10^9 operations here and also used a key in between the array (clz32) instead of at last.
Here's the code:
final code attached below

[harshkhandeparkar]

Further testing reveals how the time taken changes when the element to be searched changes:

findArrIncludes_first: 561ms findArrIncludes_middle: 605ms findArrIncludes_end: 631ms findArrIndexOf_first: 8968ms findArrIndexOf_middle: 22198ms findArrIndexOf_end: 37412ms findObj_first: 4891ms findObj_middle: 24635ms findObj_end: 25857ms findMap_first: 11336ms findMap_middle: 20039ms findMap_end: 9927ms 

indexOf and Object both take more time to search an element at the end than at the beginning. includes on the other hand, takes almost the same amount of time. Map.has is inconsistent for some reason.

[harshkhandeparkar]

@harshkhandeparkar This doesnt affect much, array is still much slower:

Somehow, my initial test gave different results. The later tests are consistent with yours. Nice find! Although, changing to includes might increase the performance even further.

[wwwzbwcom]

@harshkhandeparkar This doesnt affect much, array is still much slower:

Somehow, my initial test gave different results. The later tests are consistent with yours. Nice find! Although, changing to includes might increase the performance even further.

If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower, and if test them seperatly, they have similar speed, but they are always much more faster than findArrIndexOf

[harshkhandeparkar]

If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower

Why?

[wwwzbwcom]

If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower

Why?

Maybe gc or cache related?

[harshkhandeparkar]

If you swap the order of the findArrIncludes and findObj, findObj will be faster and findArrIncludes will be slower

Why?

Maybe gc or cache related?

Hmm, perhaps. I tested them separately and found that includes still has the benefit of constant search time.

findArrIncludes_first 470 ms findArrIncludes_middle 463 ms findArrIncludes_end 235 ms 

and

findObj_first 472 ms findObj_middle 17960 ms findObj_end 19666 ms 

[harshkhandeparkar]

attaching the code as a file here and deleting the above snippets.
speed-test.js.txt

[wwwzbwcom]

Hmm, perhaps. I tested them separately and found that includes still has the benefit of constant search time.

findArrIncludes_first 470 ms findArrIncludes_middle 463 ms findArrIncludes_end 235 ms 

and

findObj_first 472 ms findObj_middle 17960 ms findObj_end 19666 ms 

Can confirm this is true, thanks a lot for your help!

lets switch to includes