5 ms·
*Optimizing uint64_t Digit Counting: A New Method that Beats Lemire's by Up to 27%* In the quest to improve the performance of my high-speed JSON library, JSON
by realtimechris 2y ago
*Optimizing uint64_t Digit Counting: A New Method that Beats Lemire's by Up to 27%*
In the quest to improve the performance of my high-speed JSON library, JSONIFIER, I recently stumbled upon a breakthrough in optimizing the calculation of digit counts for `uint64_t` values. While Lemire’s method of using the `lzcnt` instruction for determining the number of digits in a 32-bit unsigned integer has been widely regarded as efficient, I’ve developed a new method that achieves even faster results for 64-bit unsigned integers (i.e., `uint64_t`), with significant gains across different compilers and platforms.
### The Existing Method: Lemire’s Approach
Lemire’s method, known for its efficiency, calculates the number of digits in a `uint32_t` by leveraging the `lzcnt` instruction, which finds the index of the most significant bit set to 1. This is combined with a static lookup table to map the result to the corresponding number of digits.
Here’s the code for Lemire’s method:
```cpp
JSONIFIER_INLINE int int_log2(uint32_t x) {
return 31 - simd_internal::lzcnt(x | 1);
}
JSONIFIER_INLINE int fast_digit_count(uint32_t x) {
static uint64_t table[] = { ... };
return (x + table[int_log2(x)]) >> 32;
}
```
While this approach works well for 32-bit integers, the need for a faster and more efficient solution for `uint64_t` led me to create an alternative method, which uses a more streamlined approach without the overhead of a lookup table.
### My New Method: RTC-64-Bit Digit Counting
I’ve designed a new approach for 64-bit unsigned integers that leverages a similar logic but optimizes the process by storing precomputed digit counts for specific ranges and applying simple threshold checks. The result is faster execution with reduced computational overhead.
Here's the code for the new method:
```cpp
JSONIFIER_INLINE_VARIABLE uint8_t digitCounts[]{ ... };
JSONIFIER_INLINE_VARIABLE uint64_t digitCountThresholds[]{ ... };
JSONIFIER_INLINE uint64_t fastDigitCount(const uint64_t inputValue) {
const uint64_t originalDigitCount{ digitCounts[simd_internal::lzcnt(inputValue)] };
return originalDigitCount + static_cast<uint64_t>(inputValue > digitCountThresholds[originalDigitCount]);
}
```
This method works by using a static array to hold the precomputed digit counts and another array for threshold values that determine the exact number of digits in a `uint64_t`. The key optimization lies in the efficient use of a bit manipulation technique and direct threshold checking to avoid unnecessary computations.
### [Benchmark Results](https://github.com/RealTimeChris/BenchmarkSuite/blob/digit-counting/Benchmark/main.cpp https://github.com/RealTimeChris/BenchmarkSuite/blob/digit-c...)
I ran performance benchmarks comparing my new RTC-64-bit method with Lemire’s approach and the traditional `log10` method across various platforms and compilers. The results were consistently impressive:
#### GCC/Ubuntu:
- *RTC-64-bit* outperforms *Lemire-32-bit* by *27.33%*.
- *Lemire-32-bit* beats *Log10-32-bit* by a massive *814.16%*.
#### Clang/Ubuntu:
- *RTC-64-bit* outperforms *Lemire-32-bit* by *143.34%*.
- *Lemire-32-bit* beats *Log10-32-bit* by *522.01%*.
#### MSVC/Windows:
- *RTC-64-bit* is *12.50%* faster than *Lemire-32-bit*.
- *Lemire-32-bit* beats *Log10-32-bit* by *515.90%*.
#### Clang/MacOS:
- *RTC-64-bit* is *25.37%* faster than *Lemire-32-bit*.
- *Lemire-32-bit* beats *Log10-32-bit* by *343.97%*.
### Key Takeaways
The RTC-64-bit method not only delivers improved performance on modern hardware but also significantly reduces the overhead of traditional methods by eliminating the need for a large lookup table. This is especially beneficial for high-performance applications where every cycle counts, such as in JSON serialization and parsing, where speed is critical.
- nick__m 2y agoif you prefix your code by two space on every lines it will be more readable, ex: JSONIFIER_INLINE int fast_digit_count(uint32_t x) { static uint64_t table[] = { ... }; return (x + table[int_log2(x)]) >> 32; }
- orra 2y agoVery nice work. But could you please explain why counting digits quickly (or even slowly) is useful for a JSON serializer? This is lower level than I'm used to working. Is this so you can alloc the right amount of memory, or something else?
- ComputerGuru 2y agoYes. And for string formatting in general such as sprintf to calculate buffer size. Also for proposes of calculating length for string padding and alignment.
- o11c 2y agoHonestly? Most of the time you can use an approximation. At worst you allocate a single extra byte unless your integers are hundreds of bits long (I worked this out once but I forget where I left the details). Just multiply by the ratio of logs or something like that.
- Nevermark 2y agoNice. The best kind of optimization: Go lazy, to go fast. I often go slow, to go fast. But lazy is the supremum.
- eapriv 2y agoIsn’t “the ratio of logs” going to be slower?
- o11c 2y agoI mean the constant logs of the bases; you get to hard-code this in the algorithm. One interesting coincidence is that log₁₀(2) ~= log₂(10) - 3, thus the 83 ~= 78 below. If you use an 8-bit shift, depending on which direction you're going, you multiply the input length by 851 (which is 3*256 + 83) or 78, then shift by 8. This starts being wasteful at 23 bits, but is pretty cheap on 8-bit CPUs. For a more accurate approximation (slackening at 289 bits), 217706 (3<<16 + 21098) or 19729, then >> 16