3 ms·
Because classic wc is not iterating over every byte once, but multiple times. It's especially obvious in the Unicode case where it first takes 1-4 bytes to get
by jxndnxu 2y ago
Because classic wc is not iterating over every byte once, but multiple times.
It's especially obvious in the Unicode case where it first takes 1-4 bytes to get a Unicode character and then checks this character with another function to see if it's whitespace
But even with with naive ASCII approach, if you don't hand roll a state machine you are checking multiple conditions on each byte (is it a space and am I leaving a word etc)
Using a dfa has fixed compute per byte
- kllrnohj 2y agoThose 1-4 bytes are sitting in a register the entire time and thus basically free to read as often as you want, though. An actual sampled profile showing the two approaches would be interesting. Naively it seems like it's just because it has faster UTF8 handling and nothing to do with being a state machine exactly
- brainwad 2y agoAccording to the authors it's also faster on files full of 'x' or ' ', so there must be more than just better unicode support.
- yencabulator 2y agoEven something as simple as wc calling a libc function for parsing utf-8, that doesn't get inlined, would destroy its performance relative to anything optimized. Personally, I'd expect SIMD to win over all of these. wc sounds like kind of challenge that's very easy to partition and process in chunks, though UTF-8 might ruin that.
- teo_zero 2y ago> very easy to partition and process in chunks Which counters to increment at each byte depends on the previous bytes, though. You could probably succeed using overlapping chunks, but I wouldn't call it very easy.
- yencabulator 2y agoThat sort of "find the correct chunk boundary" logic was very common with all the mapreduce processing that was done when people still used the phrase big data.