In Erik Michaels-Ober's great talk, 'Writing Fast Ruby': Video @ Baruco 2014, Slide, he presented us with many idioms that lead to faster running Ruby code. He inspired me to document these to let more people know. I try to link to real commits so people can see that this can really have benefits in the real world. This does not mean you can always blindly replace one with another. It depends on the context (e.g. gsub versus tr). Friendly reminder: Use with caution!
Each idiom has a corresponding code example that resides in code.
All results listed in README.md are running with Ruby 2.2.0p0 on OS X 10.10.1. Machine information: MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2014), 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3. Your results may vary, but you get the idea. : )
You can checkout the travis build for these benchmark results ran against different Ruby implementations.
Let's write faster code, together! <3
Checkout the fasterer project - it's a static analysis that checks speed idioms written in this repo.
Use benchmark-ips (2.0+).
require "benchmark/ips"
def fast
end
def slow
end
Benchmark.ips do |x|
x.report("fast code description") { fast }
x.report("slow code description") { slow }
x.compare!
endParallel Assignment vs Sequential Assignment code
$ ruby -v code/general/assignment.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Parallel Assignment 149.201k i/100ms
Sequential Assignment
142.545k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Parallel Assignment 7.687M (± 6.9%) i/s - 38.345M
Sequential Assignment
6.320M (± 8.5%) i/s - 31.360M
Comparison:
Parallel Assignment: 7686954.1 i/s
Sequential Assignment: 6320425.6 i/s - 1.22x slower
begin...rescue vs respond_to? for Control Flow code
$ ruby -v code/general/begin-rescue-vs-respond-to.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
begin...rescue 29.452k i/100ms
respond_to? 106.528k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
begin...rescue 371.591k (± 5.4%) i/s - 1.855M
respond_to? 3.277M (± 7.5%) i/s - 16.299M
Comparison:
respond_to?: 3276972.3 i/s
begin...rescue: 371591.0 i/s - 8.82x slower
define_method vs module_eval for Defining Methods code
$ ruby -v code/general/define_method-vs-module-eval.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
module_eval with string 125.000 i/100ms
define_method 138.000 i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
module_eval with string 1.130k (±20.3%) i/s - 5.500k
define_method 1.346k (±25.9%) i/s - 6.348k
Comparison:
define_method: 1345.6 i/s
module_eval with string: 1129.7 i/s - 1.19x slower
raise vs E2MM#Raise for raising (and defining) exeptions code
Ruby's Exception2MessageMapper module allows one to define and raise exceptions with predefined messages.
$ ruby -v code/general/raise-vs-e2mmap.rb
ruby 2.2.3p173 (2015-08-18 revision 51636) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Ruby exception: E2MM#Raise
2.865k i/100ms
Ruby exception: Kernel#raise
42.215k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Ruby exception: E2MM#Raise
27.270k (± 8.8%) i/s - 137.520k
Ruby exception: Kernel#raise
617.446k (± 7.9%) i/s - 3.082M
Comparison:
Ruby exception: Kernel#raise: 617446.2 i/s
Ruby exception: E2MM#Raise: 27269.8 i/s - 22.64x slower
Calculating -------------------------------------
Custom exception: E2MM#Raise
2.807k i/100ms
Custom exception: Kernel#raise
45.313k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Custom exception: E2MM#Raise
29.005k (± 7.2%) i/s - 145.964k
Custom exception: Kernel#raise
589.149k (± 7.8%) i/s - 2.945M
Comparison:
Custom exception: Kernel#raise: 589148.7 i/s
Custom exception: E2MM#Raise: 29004.8 i/s - 20.31x slower
loop vs while true code
$ ruby -v code/general/loop-vs-while-true.rb
ruby 2.2.3p173 (2015-08-18 revision 51636) [x86_64-linux]
Calculating -------------------------------------
While Loop 1.000 i/100ms
Kernel loop 1.000 i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
While Loop 0.536 (± 0.0%) i/s - 3.000 in 5.593042s
Kernel loop 0.223 (± 0.0%) i/s - 2.000 in 8.982355s
Comparison:
While Loop: 0.5 i/s
Kernel loop: 0.2 i/s - 2.41x slower
call vs send vs method_missing code
$ ruby -v code/method/call-vs-send-vs-method_missing.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
call 115.094k i/100ms
send 105.258k i/100ms
method_missing 100.762k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
call 3.811M (± 5.9%) i/s - 18.991M
send 3.244M (± 7.2%) i/s - 16.210M
method_missing 2.729M (± 9.8%) i/s - 13.401M
Comparison:
call: 3811183.4 i/s
send: 3244239.1 i/s - 1.17x slower
method_missing: 2728893.0 i/s - 1.40x slower
Normal way to apply method vs &method(...) code
$ ruby -v code/general/block-apply-method.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
normal 85.749k i/100ms
&method 35.529k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
normal 1.867M (± 7.6%) i/s - 9.347M
&method 467.095k (± 6.4%) i/s - 2.345M
Comparison:
normal: 1866669.5 i/s
&method: 467095.4 i/s - 4.00x slower
Function with single Array argument vs splat arguments code
$ ruby -v code/general/array-argument-vs-splat-arguments.rb
ruby 2.1.7p400 (2015-08-18 revision 51632) [x86_64-linux-gnu]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Function with single Array argument
157.231k i/100ms
Function with splat arguments
4.983k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Function with single Array argument
5.581M (± 2.0%) i/s - 27.987M
Function with splat arguments
54.428k (± 3.3%) i/s - 274.065k
Comparison:
Function with single Array argument: 5580972.6 i/s
Function with splat arguments: 54427.7 i/s - 102.54x slower
Hash vs OpenStruct on access assuming you already have a Hash or an OpenStruct code
$ ruby -v code/general/hash-vs-openstruct-on-access.rb
ruby 2.2.3p173 (2015-08-18 revision 51636) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash 128.344k i/100ms
OpenStruct 110.723k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash 5.279M (± 7.0%) i/s - 26.311M
OpenStruct 3.048M (± 7.0%) i/s - 15.169M
Comparison:
Hash: 5278844.0 i/s
OpenStruct: 3048139.8 i/s - 1.73x slower
Hash vs OpenStruct (creation) code
$ ruby -v code/general/hash-vs-openstruct.rb
ruby 2.2.3p173 (2015-08-18 revision 51636) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash 75.510k i/100ms
OpenStruct 9.126k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash 1.604M (±11.0%) i/s - 7.929M
OpenStruct 96.855k (± 9.9%) i/s - 483.678k
Comparison:
Hash: 1604259.1 i/s
OpenStruct: 96855.3 i/s - 16.56x slower
Array#bsearch vs Array#find code
WARNING: bsearch ONLY works on sorted array. More details please see #29.
$ ruby -v code/array/bsearch-vs-find.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
find 1.000 i/100ms
bsearch 42.216k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
find 0.184 (± 0.0%) i/s - 1.000 in 5.434758s
bsearch 577.301k (± 6.6%) i/s - 2.913M
Comparison:
bsearch: 577300.7 i/s
find: 0.2 i/s - 3137489.63x slower
Array#length vs Array#size vs Array#count code
Use #length when you only want to know how many elements in the array, #count could also archieve this. However #count should be use for counting specific elements in array. Note #size is an alias of #length.
$ ruby -v code/array/length-vs-size-vs-count.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#length 172.998k i/100ms
Array#size 168.130k i/100ms
Array#count 164.911k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#length 11.394M (± 6.1%) i/s - 56.743M
Array#size 11.303M (± 6.5%) i/s - 56.324M
Array#count 9.195M (± 8.6%) i/s - 45.680M
Comparison:
Array#length: 11394036.7 i/s
Array#size: 11302701.1 i/s - 1.01x slower
Array#count: 9194976.2 i/s - 1.24x slower
Array#shuffle.first vs Array#sample code
Array#shuffleallocates an extra array.
Array#sampleindexes into the array without allocating an extra array.
This is the reason why Array#sample exists.
—— @sferik rails/rails#17245
$ ruby -v code/array/shuffle-first-vs-sample.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#shuffle.first 25.406k i/100ms
Array#sample 125.101k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#shuffle.first 304.341k (± 4.3%) i/s - 1.524M
Array#sample 5.727M (± 8.6%) i/s - 28.523M
Comparison:
Array#sample: 5727032.0 i/s
Array#shuffle.first: 304341.1 i/s - 18.82x slower
Array#[](0) vs Array#first code
$ ruby -v code/array/array-first-vs-index.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#[0] 152.751k i/100ms
Array#first 148.088k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#[0] 8.614M (± 7.0%) i/s - 42.923M
Array#first 7.465M (±10.7%) i/s - 36.874M
Comparison:
Array#[0]: 8613583.7 i/s
Array#first: 7464526.6 i/s - 1.15x slower
Array#[](-1) vs Array#last code
$ ruby -v code/array/array-last-vs-index.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#[-1] 151.940k i/100ms
Array#last 153.371k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#[-1] 8.582M (± 4.6%) i/s - 42.847M
Array#last 7.639M (± 5.7%) i/s - 38.189M
Comparison:
Array#[-1]: 8582074.3 i/s
Array#last: 7639254.5 i/s - 1.12x slower
Array#insert vs Array#unshift code
$ ruby -v code/array/insert-vs-unshift.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin10.0]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#unshift 4.000 i/100ms
Array#insert 1.000 i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#unshift 44.947 (± 6.7%) i/s - 224.000
Array#insert 0.171 (± 0.0%) i/s - 1.000 in 5.841595s
Comparison:
Array#unshift: 44.9 i/s
Array#insert: 0.2 i/s - 262.56x slower
Enumerable#each + push vs Enumerable#map code
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/each-push-vs-map.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#each + push 9.025k i/100ms
Array#map 13.947k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#each + push 99.634k (± 3.2%) i/s - 505.400k
Array#map 158.091k (± 4.2%) i/s - 794.979k
Comparison:
Array#map: 158090.9 i/s
Array#each + push: 99634.2 i/s - 1.59x slower
Enumerable#each vs for loop code
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/each-vs-for-loop.rb
ruby 2.2.0preview1 (2014-09-17 trunk 47616) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
For loop 17.111k i/100ms
#each 18.464k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
For loop 198.517k (± 5.3%) i/s - 992.438k
#each 208.157k (± 5.0%) i/s - 1.052M
Comparison:
#each: 208157.4 i/s
For loop: 198517.3 i/s - 1.05x slower
Enumerable#each_with_index vs while loop code
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/each_with_index-vs-while-loop.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
While Loop 22.553k i/100ms
each_with_index 11.963k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
While Loop 240.752k (± 7.1%) i/s - 1.218M
each_with_index 126.753k (± 5.9%) i/s - 634.039k
Comparison:
While Loop: 240752.1 i/s
each_with_index: 126753.4 i/s - 1.90x slower
Enumerable#map...Array#flatten vs Enumerable#flat_map code
-- @sferik rails/rails@3413b88, Replace map.flatten with flat_map, Replace map.flatten(1) with flat_map
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/map-flatten-vs-flat_map.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#map.flatten(1) 3.315k i/100ms
Array#map.flatten 3.283k i/100ms
Array#flat_map 5.350k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#map.flatten(1) 33.801k (± 4.3%) i/s - 169.065k
Array#map.flatten 34.530k (± 6.0%) i/s - 173.999k
Array#flat_map 55.980k (± 5.0%) i/s - 283.550k
Comparison:
Array#flat_map: 55979.6 i/s
Array#map.flatten: 34529.6 i/s - 1.62x slower
Array#map.flatten(1): 33800.6 i/s - 1.66x slower
Enumerable#reverse.each vs Enumerable#reverse_each code
Enumerable#reverseallocates an extra array.
Enumerable#reverse_eachyields each value without allocating an extra array.
This is the reason whyEnumerable#reverse_eachexists.
-- @sferik rails/rails#17244
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/reverse-each-vs-reverse_each.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Array#reverse.each 16.746k i/100ms
Array#reverse_each 18.590k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Array#reverse.each 190.729k (± 4.8%) i/s - 954.522k
Array#reverse_each 216.060k (± 4.3%) i/s - 1.078M
Comparison:
Array#reverse_each: 216060.5 i/s
Array#reverse.each: 190729.1 i/s - 1.13x slower
Enumerable#detect vs Enumerable#select.first code
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/select-first-vs-detect.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Enumerable#select.first 8.515k i/100ms
Enumerable#detect 33.885k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Enumerable#select.first 89.757k (± 5.0%) i/s - 1.797M
Enumerable#detect 434.304k (± 5.2%) i/s - 8.675M
Comparison:
Enumerable#detect: 434304.2 i/s
Enumerable#select.first: 89757.4 i/s - 4.84x slower
Enumerable#select.last vs Enumerable#reverse.detect code
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/select-last-vs-reverse-detect.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Enumerable#reverse.detect 62.636k i/100ms
Enumerable#select.last 11.687k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Enumerable#reverse.detect 1.263M (± 8.2%) i/s - 6.326M
Enumerable#select.last 119.387k (± 5.7%) i/s - 596.037k
Comparison:
Enumerable#reverse.detect: 1263100.2 i/s
Enumerable#select.last: 119386.8 i/s - 10.58x slower
Enumerable#sort vs Enumerable#sort_by code
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/sort-vs-sort_by.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Enumerable#sort_by (Symbol#to_proc) 2.680k i/100ms
Enumerable#sort_by 2.462k i/100ms
Enumerable#sort 1.320k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Enumerable#sort_by (Symbol#to_proc) 25.916k (± 4.4%) i/s - 131.320k
Enumerable#sort_by 24.650k (± 5.1%) i/s - 125.562k
Enumerable#sort 14.018k (± 5.6%) i/s - 69.960k
Comparison:
Enumerable#sort_by (Symbol#to_proc): 25916.1 i/s
Enumerable#sort_by: 24650.2 i/s - 1.05x slower
Enumerable#sort: 14018.3 i/s - 1.85x slower
Enumerable#inject Symbol vs Enumerable#inject Proc code
Of note, to_proc for 1.8.7 is considerable slower than the block format
$ ruby -v code/enumerable/inject-sum-vs-block.rb
ruby 2.2.4p230 (2015-12-16 revision 53155) [x86_64-darwin14]
Warming up --------------------------------------
inject symbol 1.893k i/100ms
inject to_proc 1.583k i/100ms
inject block 1.390k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
inject symbol 19.001k (± 3.8%) i/s - 96.543k
inject to_proc 15.958k (± 3.5%) i/s - 80.733k
inject block 14.063k (± 3.9%) i/s - 70.890k
Comparison:
inject symbol: 19001.5 i/s
inject to_proc: 15958.3 i/s - 1.19x slower
inject block: 14063.1 i/s - 1.35x slower
Hash#[] vs Hash#fetch code
If you use Ruby 2.2, Symbol could be more performant than String as Hash keys.
Read more regarding this: Symbol GC in Ruby 2.2 and Unraveling String Key Performance in Ruby 2.2.
$ ruby -v code/hash/bracket-vs-fetch.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash#[], symbol 143.850k i/100ms
Hash#fetch, symbol 137.425k i/100ms
Hash#[], string 143.083k i/100ms
Hash#fetch, string 120.417k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash#[], symbol 7.531M (± 6.6%) i/s - 37.545M
Hash#fetch, symbol 6.644M (± 8.2%) i/s - 32.982M
Hash#[], string 6.657M (± 7.7%) i/s - 33.195M
Hash#fetch, string 3.981M (± 8.7%) i/s - 19.748M
Comparison:
Hash#[], symbol: 7531355.8 i/s
Hash#[], string: 6656818.8 i/s - 1.13x slower
Hash#fetch, symbol: 6643665.5 i/s - 1.13x slower
Hash#fetch, string: 3981166.5 i/s - 1.89x slower
Hash#dig vs Hash#[] vs Hash#fetch code
Ruby 2.3 introduced Hash#dig which is a readable
and performant option for retrieval from a nested hash, returning nil if an extraction step fails.
See #102 (comment) for more info.
$ ruby -v code/hash/dig-vs-\[\]-vs-fetch.rb
ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-darwin15]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash#dig 5.719M (± 6.1%) i/s - 28.573M in 5.013997s
Hash#[] 6.066M (± 6.9%) i/s - 30.324M in 5.025614s
Hash#[] || 5.366M (± 6.5%) i/s - 26.933M in 5.041403s
Hash#[] && 2.782M (± 4.8%) i/s - 13.905M in 5.010328s
Hash#fetch 4.101M (± 6.1%) i/s - 20.531M in 5.024945s
Hash#fetch fallback 2.975M (± 5.5%) i/s - 14.972M in 5.048880s
Comparison:
Hash#[]: 6065791.0 i/s
Hash#dig: 5719290.9 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error
Hash#[] ||: 5366226.5 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error
Hash#fetch: 4101102.1 i/s - 1.48x slower
Hash#fetch fallback: 2974906.9 i/s - 2.04x slower
Hash#[] &&: 2781646.6 i/s - 2.18x slower
Hash[] vs Hash#dup code
Source: http://tenderlovemaking.com/2015/02/11/weird-stuff-with-hashes.html
Does this mean that you should switch to Hash[]? Only if your benchmarks can prove that it’s a bottleneck. Please please please don’t change all of your code because this shows it’s faster. Make sure to measure your app performance first.
$ ruby -v code/hash/bracket-vs-dup.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash[] 29.403k i/100ms
Hash#dup 16.195k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash[] 343.987k (± 8.7%) i/s - 1.735M
Hash#dup 163.516k (±10.2%) i/s - 825.945k
Comparison:
Hash[]: 343986.5 i/s
Hash#dup: 163516.3 i/s - 2.10x slower
Hash#fetch with argument vs Hash#fetch + block code
Note that the speedup in the block version comes from avoiding repeated
construction of the argument. If the argument is a constant, number symbol or
something of that sort the argument version is actually slightly faster
See also #39 (comment)
$ ruby -v code/hash/fetch-vs-fetch-with-block.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin13]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash#fetch + const 129.868k i/100ms
Hash#fetch + block 125.254k i/100ms
Hash#fetch + arg 121.155k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash#fetch + const 7.031M (± 7.0%) i/s - 34.934M
Hash#fetch + block 6.815M (± 4.2%) i/s - 34.069M
Hash#fetch + arg 4.753M (± 5.6%) i/s - 23.746M
Comparison:
Hash#fetch + const: 7030600.4 i/s
Hash#fetch + block: 6814826.7 i/s - 1.03x slower
Hash#fetch + arg: 4752567.2 i/s - 1.48x slower
Hash#each_key instead of Hash#keys.each code
Hash#keys.eachallocates an array of keys;
Hash#each_keyiterates through the keys without allocating a new array.
This is the reason whyHash#each_keyexists.
—— @sferik rails/rails#17099
$ ruby -v code/hash/keys-each-vs-each_key.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash#keys.each 56.690k i/100ms
Hash#each_key 59.658k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash#keys.each 869.262k (± 5.0%) i/s - 4.365M
Hash#each_key 1.049M (± 6.0%) i/s - 5.250M
Comparison:
Hash#each_key: 1049161.6 i/s
Hash#keys.each: 869262.3 i/s - 1.21x slower
Hash#merge! vs Hash#[]= code
$ ruby -v code/hash/merge-bang-vs-\[\]=.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash#merge! 1.023k i/100ms
Hash#[]= 2.844k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash#merge! 10.653k (± 4.9%) i/s - 53.196k
Hash#[]= 28.287k (±12.4%) i/s - 142.200k
Comparison:
Hash#[]=: 28287.1 i/s
Hash#merge!: 10653.3 i/s - 2.66x slower
Hash#merge vs Hash#**other code
$ ruby -v merge-vs-double-splat-operator.rb
ruby 2.3.3p222 (2016-11-21 revision 56859) [x86_64-darwin15]
Warming up --------------------------------------
Hash#**other 64.624k i/100ms
Hash#merge 38.827k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash#**other 798.397k (± 6.9%) i/s - 4.007M in 5.053516s
Hash#merge 434.171k (± 4.5%) i/s - 2.174M in 5.018927s
Comparison:
Hash#**other: 798396.6 i/s
Hash#merge: 434170.8 i/s - 1.84x slower
Hash#merge vs Hash#merge! code
$ ruby -v code/hash/merge-vs-merge-bang.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Hash#merge 39.000 i/100ms
Hash#merge! 1.008k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Hash#merge 409.610 (± 7.6%) i/s - 2.067k
Hash#merge! 9.830k (± 5.8%) i/s - 49.392k
Comparison:
Hash#merge!: 9830.3 i/s
Hash#merge: 409.6 i/s - 24.00x slower
{}#merge!(Hash) vs Hash#merge({}) vs Hash#dup#merge!({}) code
When we don't want to modify the original hash, and we want duplicates to be created
See #42 for more details.
$ ruby -v code/hash/merge-bang-vs-merge-vs-dup-merge-bang.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-linux]
Calculating -------------------------------------
{}#merge!(Hash) do end 2.006k i/100ms
Hash#merge({}) 762.000 i/100ms
Hash#dup#merge!({}) 736.000 i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
{}#merge!(Hash) do end 20.055k (± 2.0%) i/s - 100.300k in 5.003322s
Hash#merge({}) 7.676k (± 1.2%) i/s - 38.862k in 5.063382s
Hash#dup#merge!({}) 7.440k (± 1.1%) i/s - 37.536k in 5.045851s
Comparison:
{}#merge!(Hash) do end: 20054.8 i/s
Hash#merge({}): 7676.3 i/s - 2.61x slower
Hash#dup#merge!({}): 7439.9 i/s - 2.70x slower
Hash#sort_by vs Hash#sort code
To sort hash by key.
$ ruby -v code/hash/hash-key-sort_by-vs-sort.rb
ruby 2.2.1p85 (2015-02-26 revision 49769) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
sort_by + to_h 11.468k i/100ms
sort + to_h 8.107k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
sort_by + to_h 122.176k (± 6.0%) i/s - 619.272k
sort + to_h 81.973k (± 4.7%) i/s - 413.457k
Comparison:
sort_by + to_h: 122176.2 i/s
sort + to_h: 81972.8 i/s - 1.49x slower
Block vs Symbol#to_proc code
Symbol#to_procis considerably more concise than using block syntax.
...In some cases, it reduces the number of lines of code.
—— @sferik rails/rails#16833
$ ruby -v code/proc-and-block/block-vs-to_proc.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Block 4.632k i/100ms
Symbol#to_proc 5.225k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
Block 47.914k (± 6.3%) i/s - 240.864k
Symbol#to_proc 54.791k (± 4.1%) i/s - 276.925k
Comparison:
Symbol#to_proc: 54791.1 i/s
Block: 47914.3 i/s - 1.14x slower
Proc#call and block arguments vs yieldcode
In MRI Ruby, block arguments are converted to Procs, which incurs a heap allocation.
$ ruby -v code/proc-and-block/proc-call-vs-yield.rb
ruby 2.2.3p173 (2015-08-18 revision 51636) [x86_64-darwin15]
Calculating -------------------------------------
block.call 41.978k i/100ms
block + yield 42.674k i/100ms
block argument 41.722k i/100ms
yield 62.681k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
block.call 842.581k (±12.5%) i/s - 4.114M
block + yield 941.468k (±11.7%) i/s - 4.651M
block argument 1.043M (± 7.1%) i/s - 5.215M
yield 3.828M (±11.3%) i/s - 18.930M
Comparison:
yield: 3828436.1 i/s
block argument: 1042509.6 i/s - 3.67x slower
block + yield: 941467.7 i/s - 4.07x slower
block.call: 842581.2 i/s - 4.54x slower
String#casecmp vs String#downcase + == code
$ ruby -v code/string/casecmp-vs-downcase-\=\=.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#downcase + == 101.900k i/100ms
String#casecmp 109.828k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
String#downcase + == 2.915M (± 5.4%) i/s - 14.572M
String#casecmp 3.708M (± 6.1%) i/s - 18.561M
Comparison:
String#casecmp: 3708258.7 i/s
String#downcase + ==: 2914767.7 i/s - 1.27x slower
String Concatenation code
$ ruby -v code/string/concatenation.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-linux]
Warming up --------------------------------------
String#+ 149.298k i/100ms
String#concat 151.505k i/100ms
String#append 153.389k i/100ms
"foo" "bar" 195.552k i/100ms
"#{'foo'}#{'bar'}" 193.784k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#+ 2.977M (± 1.1%) i/s - 14.930M in 5.015179s
String#concat 3.017M (± 1.3%) i/s - 15.150M in 5.023063s
String#append 3.076M (± 1.2%) i/s - 15.492M in 5.037683s
"foo" "bar" 5.370M (± 1.0%) i/s - 26.986M in 5.026271s
"#{'foo'}#{'bar'}" 5.182M (± 4.6%) i/s - 25.967M in 5.022093s
Comparison:
"foo" "bar": 5369594.5 i/s
"#{'foo'}#{'bar'}": 5181745.7 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error
String#append: 3075719.2 i/s - 1.75x slower
String#concat: 3016703.5 i/s - 1.78x slower
String#+: 2977282.7 i/s - 1.80x slower
String#match vs String#start_with?/String#end_with? code (start) code (end)
⚠️
Sometimes you cant replace regexp withstart_with?,
for example:"a\nb" =~ /^b/ #=> 2but"a\nb" =~ /\Ab/ #=> nil.
⚠️
You can combinestart_with?andend_with?to replaceerror.path =~ /^#{path}(\.rb)?$/to this
error.path.start_with?(path) && error.path.end_with?('.rb', '')
—— @igas rails/rails#17316
$ ruby -v code/string/start-string-checking-match-vs-start_with.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#=~ 56.672k i/100ms
String#start_with? 118.308k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
String#=~ 919.574k (± 6.4%) i/s - 4.590M
String#start_with? 4.177M (± 6.4%) i/s - 20.822M
Comparison:
String#start_with?: 4177162.6 i/s
String#=~: 919574.2 i/s - 4.54x slower
$ ruby -v code/string/end-string-checking-match-vs-end_with.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#=~ 53.194k i/100ms
String#end_with? 105.871k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
String#=~ 891.124k (± 7.2%) i/s - 4.468M
String#end_with? 2.942M (± 7.6%) i/s - 14.610M
Comparison:
String#end_with?: 2942017.4 i/s
String#=~: 891124.1 i/s - 3.30x slower
String#start_with? vs String#[].== code
$ ruby -v code/string/end-string-checking-match-vs-end_with.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#start_with? 2.047M (± 4.5%) i/s - 10.242M in 5.015146s
String#[0, n] == 711.802k (± 7.3%) i/s - 3.551M in 5.019543s
String#[RANGE] == 651.751k (± 6.2%) i/s - 3.296M in 5.078772s
String#[0...n] == 427.207k (± 5.7%) i/s - 2.136M in 5.019245s
Comparison:
String#start_with?: 2046618.9 i/s
String#[0, n] ==: 711802.3 i/s - 2.88x slower
String#[RANGE] ==: 651751.2 i/s - 3.14x slower
String#[0...n] ==: 427206.8 i/s - 4.79x slower
Regexp#=== vs String#match vs String#=~ code
⚠️
Sometimes you can't replacematchwith=~,
This is only useful for cases where you are checking
for a match and not using the resultant match object.
⚠️
Regexp#===is also faster thanString#matchbut you need to switch the order of arguments.
$ ruby -v code/string/===-vs-=~-vs-match.rb.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#=~ 98.184k i/100ms
Regexp#=== 92.382k i/100ms
String#match 83.601k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
String#=~ 2.442M (± 7.6%) i/s - 12.175M
Regexp#=== 2.259M (± 7.9%) i/s - 11.271M
String#match 1.840M (± 7.3%) i/s - 9.196M
Comparison:
String#=~: 2442335.1 i/s
Regexp#===: 2259277.3 i/s - 1.08x slower
String#match: 1839815.4 i/s - 1.33x slower
See #59 and #62 for discussions.
String#gsub vs String#sub vs String#[]= code
$ ruby -v code/string/gsub-vs-sub.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-linux]
Warming up --------------------------------------
String#gsub 48.360k i/100ms
String#sub 45.739k i/100ms
String#dup["string"]= 59.896k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#gsub 647.666k (± 3.3%) i/s - 3.240M in 5.008504s
String#sub 756.665k (± 2.0%) i/s - 3.796M in 5.019235s
String#dup["string"]= 917.873k (± 1.8%) i/s - 4.612M in 5.026253s
Comparison:
String#dup["string"]=: 917873.1 i/s
String#sub: 756664.7 i/s - 1.21x slower
String#gsub: 647665.6 i/s - 1.42x slower
String#gsub vs String#tr code
$ ruby -v code/string/gsub-vs-tr.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#gsub 38.268k i/100ms
String#tr 83.210k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
String#gsub 516.604k (± 4.4%) i/s - 2.602M
String#tr 1.862M (± 4.0%) i/s - 9.320M
Comparison:
String#tr: 1861860.4 i/s
String#gsub: 516604.2 i/s - 3.60x slower
Mutable vs Immutable code
$ ruby -v code/string/mutable_vs_immutable_strings.rb
ruby 2.3.1p112 (2016-04-26 revision 54768) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
Without Freeze 7.279M (± 6.6%) i/s - 36.451M in 5.029785s
With Freeze 9.329M (± 7.9%) i/s - 46.370M in 5.001345s
Comparison:
With Freeze: 9329054.3 i/s
Without Freeze: 7279203.1 i/s - 1.28x slower
String#sub! vs String#gsub! vs String#[]= code
Note that String#[] will throw an IndexError when given string or regexp not matched.
$ ruby -v code/string/sub\!-vs-gsub\!-vs-\[\]\=.rb
ruby 2.2.2p95 (2015-04-13 revision 50295) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#['string']= 74.512k i/100ms
String#sub!'string' 52.801k i/100ms
String#gsub!'string' 34.480k i/100ms
String#[/regexp/]= 55.325k i/100ms
String#sub!/regexp/ 45.770k i/100ms
String#gsub!/regexp/ 27.665k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
String#['string']= 1.215M (± 6.2%) i/s - 6.110M
String#sub!'string' 752.731k (± 6.2%) i/s - 3.749M
String#gsub!'string' 481.183k (± 4.4%) i/s - 2.414M
String#[/regexp/]= 840.615k (± 5.3%) i/s - 4.205M
String#sub!/regexp/ 663.075k (± 7.8%) i/s - 3.295M
String#gsub!/regexp/ 342.004k (± 7.5%) i/s - 1.715M
Comparison:
String#['string']=: 1214845.5 i/s
String#[/regexp/]=: 840615.2 i/s - 1.45x slower
String#sub!'string': 752731.4 i/s - 1.61x slower
String#sub!/regexp/: 663075.3 i/s - 1.83x slower
String#gsub!'string': 481183.5 i/s - 2.52x slower
String#gsub!/regexp/: 342003.8 i/s - 3.55x slower
String#sub vs String#chomp code
Note that this can only be used for removing characters from the end of a string.
$ ruby -v code/string/sub-vs-chomp.rb
ruby 2.2.3p173 (2015-08-18 revision 51636) [x86_64-darwin13]
Calculating -------------------------------------
String#sub/regexp/ 42.816k i/100ms
String#chomp'string' 94.851k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
String#sub/regexp/ 660.509k (± 8.0%) i/s - 3.297M
String#chomp'string' 2.803M (± 8.0%) i/s - 13.943M
Comparison:
String#chomp'string': 2803443.5 i/s
String#sub/regexp/: 660508.7 i/s - 4.24x slower
attr_accessor vs getter and setter code
https://www.omniref.com/ruby/2.2.0/files/method.h?#annotation=4081781&line=47
$ ruby -v code/general/attr-accessor-vs-getter-and-setter.rb
ruby 2.2.0p0 (2014-12-25 revision 49005) [x86_64-darwin14]
Calculating -------------------------------------
getter_and_setter 61.240k i/100ms
attr_accessor 66.535k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
getter_and_setter 1.660M (± 9.7%) i/s - 8.267M
attr_accessor 1.865M (± 9.2%) i/s - 9.248M
Comparison:
attr_accessor: 1865408.4 i/s
getter_and_setter: 1660021.9 i/s - 1.12x slower
cover? vs include? code
cover? only check if it is within the start and end, include? needs to traverse the whole range.
$ ruby -v code/range/cover-vs-include.rb
ruby 2.2.3p173 (2015-08-18 revision 51636) [x86_64-linux]
Calculating -------------------------------------
range#cover? 85.467k i/100ms
range#include? 7.720k i/100ms
range#member? 7.783k i/100ms
plain compare 102.189k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
range#cover? 1.816M (± 5.6%) i/s - 9.060M
range#include? 83.344k (± 5.0%) i/s - 416.880k
range#member? 82.654k (± 5.0%) i/s - 412.499k
plain compare 2.581M (± 6.2%) i/s - 12.876M
Comparison:
plain compare: 2581211.8 i/s
range#cover?: 1816038.5 i/s - 1.42x slower
range#include?: 83343.9 i/s - 30.97x slower
range#member?: 82654.1 i/s - 31.23x slower
Please! Edit this README.md then Submit a Awesome Pull Request!
Code example is wrong? 😢 Got better example? 😍 Excellent!
Please open an issue or Open a Pull Request to fix it.
Thank you in advance! 😉 🍺
Share this with your #Rubyfriends! <3
Brought to you by @JuanitoFatas
Feel free to talk with me on Twitter! <3
-
Go faster, off the Rails - Benchmarks for your whole Rails app
-
Talk by Davy Stevenson @ RubyConf 2014.
-
Provides Big O notation benchmarking for Ruby.
-
Talk by Prem Sichanugrist @ Ruby Kaigi 2014.
-
Make your Rubies go faster with this command line tool.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To the extent possible under law, @JuanitoFatas has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to "fast-ruby".
This work belongs to the community.