I have heard a few people argue that when it comes to performance critical code you should prefer arrays over other collections (such as F#’s lists) as it benefits from sequential reads (which is faster than seeks) and offers better memory locality.
To test that theory somewhat, I wanted to see if there is any difference in how fast you can iterate through an array versus a list in F#, and how much faster you can map over an array compared to a list:
The result is a little surprising, whilst I wasn’t expecting there to be a massive difference in the iterating through the two types of collections, I didn’t think mapping over a list would be quite as slow in comparison. I knew that constructing a list is much heavier than constructing an array, but I didn’t think it’d take 22x as long in this case.
What was even more surprising was how much slower the Seq.iter and Seq.map functions are compared to the Array and List module equivalents! This is, according to John Palmer:
Once you call in to
Seqyou lose the type information – moving to the next element in the list requires a call to
IEnumerator.MoveNext. Compare to for
Arrayyou just increment an index and for
Listyou can just dereference a pointer. Essentially, you are getting an extra function call for each element in the list.
The conversions back to
Arrayalso slow the code down for similar reasons
As a work around, you COULD shadow the Seq module with iter and map functions that adds simple type checking and in the case of an array or list simply call the corresponding function in the Array or List module instead:
Whilst this approach will work to a certain extend, you should be careful with which functions you shadow. For instance, it’s not safe to shadow Seq.map because it can be used in conjunction with other functions such as Seq.takeWhile or Seq.take. In the base implementation, a line of code such as:
arr |> Seq.map incr |> Seq.take 3
will not map over every element in the source array.
With the shadowed version (see above) of Seq.map, however, this would first create a new array by applying the mapper function against every element in the source array before discarding all but the first three elements in the new array. This, as you can imagine, is far less efficient and requires much more memory space (for the new array) and defeats the purpose of using Seq module functions in most cases.
I specialise in rapidly transitioning teams to serverless and building production-ready services on AWS.
Are you struggling with serverless or need guidance on best practices? Do you want someone to review your architecture and help you avoid costly mistakes down the line? Whatever the case, I’m here to help.
Check out my new course, Complete Guide to AWS Step Functions. In this course, we’ll cover everything you need to know to use AWS Step Functions service effectively. Including basic concepts, HTTP and event triggers, activities, callbacks, nested workflows, design patterns and best practices.
Here is a complete list of all my posts on serverless and AWS Lambda. In the meantime, here are a few of my most popular blog posts.
- Lambda optimization tip – enable HTTP keep-alive
- You are thinking about serverless costs all wrong
- Many faced threats to Serverless security
- We can do better than percentile latencies
- I’m afraid you’re thinking about AWS Lambda cold starts all wrong
- Yubl’s road to Serverless
- AWS Lambda – should you have few monolithic functions or many single-purposed functions?
- AWS Lambda – compare coldstart time with different languages, memory and code sizes
- Guys, we’re doing pagination wrong