Optimize scan method

[naitoh]

• before: Accept String as a pattern at non head #106

CRuby

Why?

1. Remove duplicate if (S_RESTLEN(p) < RSTRING_LEN(pattern)) return Qnil; checks in !headonly.

A similar check is made within rb_memsearch() within !headonly.

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/cf8388f76c4c2ff2f46d0d2aa2cf5186e05ff606/re.c#L251-L256

long
rb_memsearch(const void *x0, long m, const void *y0, long n, rb_encoding *enc)
{
    const unsigned char *x = x0, *y = y0;

    if (m > n) return -1;

• m = RSTRING_LEN(pattern)
• n = S_RESTLEN(p)

This means the following :
if (RSTRING_LEN(pattern) > S_RESTLEN(p)) return -1;

Both checks are the same.

2. Removed unnecessary use of rb_enc_get()

In rb_strseq_index(), the result of rb_enc_check() is used.

• https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/6c7209cd3788ceec01e504d99057f9d3b396be84/string.c#L4335-L4368

enc = rb_enc_check(str, sub);

return strseq_core(str_ptr, str_ptr_end, str_len, sub_ptr, sub_len, offset, enc);

• https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/6c7209cd3788ceec01e504d99057f9d3b396be84/string.c#L4309-L4318

strseq_core(const char *str_ptr, const char *str_ptr_end, long str_len,
            const char *sub_ptr, long sub_len, long offset, rb_encoding *enc)
{
    const char *search_start = str_ptr;
    long pos, search_len = str_len - offset;

    for (;;) {
        const char *t;
        pos = rb_memsearch(sub_ptr, sub_len, search_start, search_len, enc);

Benchmark

It shows String as a pattern is 1.23x faster than Regexp as a pattern.

$ benchmark-driver benchmark/check_until.yaml
Warming up --------------------------------------
              regexp     9.300M i/s -      9.509M times in 1.022507s (107.53ns/i)
          regexp_var     9.110M i/s -      9.262M times in 1.016682s (109.76ns/i)
              string     9.051M i/s -      9.304M times in 1.028047s (110.49ns/i)
          string_var    11.187M i/s -     11.722M times in 1.047826s (89.39ns/i)
Calculating -------------------------------------
              regexp    10.197M i/s -     27.899M times in 2.735904s (98.06ns/i)
          regexp_var    10.198M i/s -     27.331M times in 2.680120s (98.06ns/i)
              string    10.089M i/s -     27.152M times in 2.691312s (99.12ns/i)
          string_var    12.530M i/s -     33.562M times in 2.678533s (79.81ns/i)

Comparison:
          string_var:  12529824.3 i/s
          regexp_var:  10197773.2 i/s - 1.23x  slower
              regexp:  10197371.0 i/s - 1.23x  slower
              string:  10088701.3 i/s - 1.24x  slower

JRuby

Why?

1. Remove duplicate if (restLen() < pattern.size()) return context.nil; checks in !headonly.

strscan/ext/jruby/org/jruby/ext/strscan/RubyStringScanner.java

Lines 371 to 373 in d31274f

	private int restLen() {
	return str.size() - curr;
	}

This means the following :

if (str.size() - curr < pattern.size()) return context.nil;

A similar check is made within StringSupport#index() within !headonly.

https://github.com/jruby/jruby/blob/be7815ec02356a58891c8727bb448f0c6a826d96/core/src/main/java/org/jruby/util/StringSupport.java#L1706-L1720

    public static int index(ByteList source, ByteList other, int offset, Encoding enc) {
        int sourceLen = source.realSize();
        int sourceBegin = source.begin();
        int otherLen = other.realSize();

        if (otherLen == 0) return offset;
        if (sourceLen - offset < otherLen) return -1;

• source = strBL
• other = patternBL
• offset = strBeg + curr

This means the following :
if (strBL.realSize() - (strBeg + curr) < patternBL.realSize()) return -1;

Both checks are the same.

2. Use currPtr() instead of strBeg + curr . Because they are identical.

strscan/ext/jruby/org/jruby/ext/strscan/RubyStringScanner.java

Lines 267 to 268 in d31274f

	ByteList strBL = str.getByteList();
	int strBeg = strBL.getBegin();

strscan/ext/jruby/org/jruby/ext/strscan/RubyStringScanner.java

Lines 359 to 361 in d31274f

	private int currPtr() {
	return str.getByteList().getBegin() + curr;
	}

Benchmark

It shows String as a pattern is 2.43x faster than Regexp as a pattern.

$ benchmark-driver benchmark/check_until.yaml
Warming up --------------------------------------
              regexp     7.371M i/s -      7.352M times in 0.997443s (135.67ns/i)
          regexp_var     7.303M i/s -      7.262M times in 0.994284s (136.92ns/i)
              string    13.596M i/s -     13.535M times in 0.995475s (73.55ns/i)
          string_var    15.032M i/s -     14.942M times in 0.994038s (66.53ns/i)
Calculating -------------------------------------
              regexp     9.120M i/s -     22.113M times in 2.424781s (109.65ns/i)
          regexp_var     8.914M i/s -     21.910M times in 2.458050s (112.19ns/i)
              string    22.174M i/s -     40.789M times in 1.839495s (45.10ns/i)
          string_var    19.994M i/s -     45.095M times in 2.255454s (50.02ns/i)

Comparison:
              string:  22174077.0 i/s
          string_var:  19993967.8 i/s - 1.11x  slower
              regexp:   9119635.2 i/s - 2.43x  slower
          regexp_var:   8913743.3 i/s - 2.49x  slower

[kou]

Could you add how to optimize this to the description? Is avoiding grn_enc_get() the main optimization?

[kou]

Why do we need this move? Why is this needless for !headonly?

[naitoh]

A similar check is made within rb_memsearch() within !headonly.

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/cf8388f76c4c2ff2f46d0d2aa2cf5186e05ff606/re.c#L251-L256

long
rb_memsearch(const void *x0, long m, const void *y0, long n, rb_encoding *enc)
{
    const unsigned char *x = x0, *y = y0;

    if (m > n) return -1;

• m = RSTRING_LEN(pattern)
• n = S_RESTLEN(p)

This means the following :
if (RSTRING_LEN(pattern) > S_RESTLEN(p)) return -1;

[naitoh]

@kou

Could you add how to optimize this to the description?

Sorry.
I added it to the description.

[kou]

Thanks.
How about using 1 PR for 1 optimization?

It seems that this has 4 optimizations:

1. CRuby: (S_RESTLEN(p) < RSTRING_LEN(pattern))
2. CRuby: rb_enc_get()
3. JRuby: (restLen() < pattern.size())
4. JRuby: currPtr()

[naitoh]

How about using 1 PR for 1 optimization?

OK, I see.