TL;DR
功能实现can在某些情况下，比原来的程序实现更快。
为什么函数式风格比命令式风格慢这么多？功能实现是否存在导致如此巨大的减速的问题？
As Matthieu M. 已经指出 https://stackoverflow.com/a/55675389/155423，需要注意的重要一点是算法很重要。该算法的表达方式（过程式、命令式、面向对象、函数式、声明式）通常并不重要。
我发现功能代码有两个主要问题：
Using more迭代器工具（batching https://docs.rs/itertools/0.8.0/itertools/trait.Itertools.html#method.batching, take_while_ref https://docs.rs/itertools/0.8.0/itertools/trait.Itertools.html#method.take_while_ref, format_with https://docs.rs/itertools/0.8.0/itertools/trait.Itertools.html#method.format_with) 使两个实现更加接近：
pub fn encode_slim(data: &str) -> String {
data.chars()
.batching(|it| {
it.next()
.map(|v| (v, it.take_while_ref(|&v2| v2 == v).count() + 1))
})
.format_with("", |(c, count), f| match count {
1 => f(&c),
n => f(&format_args!("{}{}", n, c)),
})
.to_string()
}
4MiB 随机字母数字数据的基准，编译为RUSTFLAGS='-C target-cpu=native':
encode (procedural) time: [21.082 ms 21.620 ms 22.211 ms]
encode (fast) time: [26.457 ms 27.104 ms 27.882 ms]
Found 7 outliers among 100 measurements (7.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild
3 (3.00%) high severe
如果您有兴趣创建自己的迭代器，您可以将过程代码与更多功能代码混合搭配：
struct RunLength<I> {
iter: I,
saved: Option<char>,
}
impl<I> RunLength<I>
where
I: Iterator<Item = char>,
{
fn new(mut iter: I) -> Self {
let saved = iter.next(); // See footnote 1
Self { iter, saved }
}
}
impl<I> Iterator for RunLength<I>
where
I: Iterator<Item = char>,
{
type Item = (char, usize);
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
let c = self.saved.take().or_else(|| self.iter.next())?;
let mut count = 1;
while let Some(n) = self.iter.next() {
if n == c {
count += 1
} else {
self.saved = Some(n);
break;
}
}
Some((c, count))
}
}
pub fn encode_tiny(data: &str) -> String {
use std::fmt::Write;
RunLength::new(data.chars()).fold(String::new(), |mut s, (c, count)| {
match count {
1 => s.push(c),
n => write!(&mut s, "{}{}", n, c).unwrap(),
}
s
})
}
1- 谢谢Stargateur 指出 https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/45932591#45932591急切地获取第一个值有助于分支预测。
4MiB 随机字母数字数据的基准，编译为RUSTFLAGS='-C target-cpu=native':
encode (procedural) time: [19.888 ms 20.301 ms 20.794 ms]
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
3 (3.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
encode (tiny) time: [19.150 ms 19.262 ms 19.399 ms]
Found 11 outliers among 100 measurements (11.00%)
5 (5.00%) high mild
6 (6.00%) high severe
我相信这更清楚地表明了主要基本的两种实现之间的区别：基于迭代器的解决方案是可恢复的。每次我们打电话next，我们需要查看是否有我们读过的前一个字符（self.saved）。这会向程序代码中不存在的代码添加一个分支。
另一方面，基于迭代器的解决方案更加灵活——我们现在可以对数据进行各种转换，或者直接写入文件而不是写入文件String等等。自定义迭代器可以扩展为对泛型类型进行操作，而不是char以及，使其very灵活的。
也可以看看：
- 如何向迭代器添加新方法？ https://stackoverflow.com/q/30540766/155423
如果我想编写高性能代码，我应该使用这种函数式风格吗？
我会的，直到基准测试表明这是瓶颈。然后评估why这是瓶颈。
支持代码
总是要展示你的作品，对吧？
基准测试.rs
use criterion::{criterion_group, criterion_main, Criterion}; // 0.2.11
use rle::*;
fn criterion_benchmark(c: &mut Criterion) {
let data = rand_data(4 * 1024 * 1024);
c.bench_function("encode (procedural)", {
let data = data.clone();
move |b| b.iter(|| encode_proc(&data))
});
c.bench_function("encode (functional)", {
let data = data.clone();
move |b| b.iter(|| encode_iter(&data))
});
c.bench_function("encode (fast)", {
let data = data.clone();
move |b| b.iter(|| encode_slim(&data))
});
c.bench_function("encode (tiny)", {
let data = data.clone();
move |b| b.iter(|| encode_tiny(&data))
});
}
criterion_group!(benches, criterion_benchmark);
criterion_main!(benches);
lib.rs
use itertools::Itertools; // 0.8.0
use rand; // 0.6.5
pub fn rand_data(len: usize) -> String {
use rand::distributions::{Alphanumeric, Distribution};
let mut rng = rand::thread_rng();
Alphanumeric.sample_iter(&mut rng).take(len).collect()
}
pub fn encode_proc(source: &str) -> String {
let mut retval = String::new();
let firstchar = source.chars().next();
let mut currentchar = match firstchar {
Some(x) => x,
None => return retval,
};
let mut currentcharcount: u32 = 0;
for c in source.chars() {
if c == currentchar {
currentcharcount += 1;
} else {
if currentcharcount > 1 {
retval.push_str(¤tcharcount.to_string());
}
retval.push(currentchar);
currentchar = c;
currentcharcount = 1;
}
}
if currentcharcount > 1 {
retval.push_str(¤tcharcount.to_string());
}
retval.push(currentchar);
retval
}
pub fn encode_iter(data: &str) -> String {
data.chars()
.group_by(|&c| c)
.into_iter()
.map(|(c, group)| match group.count() {
1 => c.to_string(),
n => format!("{}{}", n, c),
})
.collect()
}
pub fn encode_slim(data: &str) -> String {
data.chars()
.batching(|it| {
it.next()
.map(|v| (v, it.take_while_ref(|&v2| v2 == v).count() + 1))
})
.format_with("", |(c, count), f| match count {
1 => f(&c),
n => f(&format_args!("{}{}", n, c)),
})
.to_string()
}
struct RunLength<I> {
iter: I,
saved: Option<char>,
}
impl<I> RunLength<I>
where
I: Iterator<Item = char>,
{
fn new(mut iter: I) -> Self {
let saved = iter.next();
Self { iter, saved }
}
}
impl<I> Iterator for RunLength<I>
where
I: Iterator<Item = char>,
{
type Item = (char, usize);
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
let c = self.saved.take().or_else(|| self.iter.next())?;
let mut count = 1;
while let Some(n) = self.iter.next() {
if n == c {
count += 1
} else {
self.saved = Some(n);
break;
}
}
Some((c, count))
}
}
pub fn encode_tiny(data: &str) -> String {
use std::fmt::Write;
RunLength::new(data.chars()).fold(String::new(), |mut s, (c, count)| {
match count {
1 => s.push(c),
n => write!(&mut s, "{}{}", n, c).unwrap(),
}
s
})
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod test {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn all_the_same() {
let data = rand_data(1024);
let a = encode_proc(&data);
let b = encode_iter(&data);
let c = encode_slim(&data);
let d = encode_tiny(&data);
assert_eq!(a, b);
assert_eq!(a, c);
assert_eq!(a, d);
}
}
