Feat/performance improvement

[Maksimka101]

Status

READY

Breaking Changes

NO

Description

I've noticed that the performance of comparing objects with collections can be significantly enhanced. These optimizations in my application led to a considerable increase in FPS, approximately by 3 times. Additionally, I've conducted tests to compare the performance between the old and new approaches

Todos

• Tests
• Documentation
• Examples

Impact to Remaining Code Base

This PR will affect:

• comparison logic

[felangel]

Thanks for the PR! Are you able to share the benchmarks you used? I would love to run them locally and validate the results.

[Maksimka101]

Thanks for the PR! Are you able to share the benchmarks you used? I would love to run them locally and validate the results.

Sure, here is the link: https://github.com/Maksimka101/equatable_benchmark

[Maksimka101]

Hello

Any news?🙂

Do I need to fix something or provide more information?

[felangel]

Hello

Any news?🙂

Do I need to fix something or provide more information?

Apologies for the delay! I was slow to respond due to the holidays but I should have time to review this in the next day or two. Thanks again!

[Maksimka101]

Thanks. No need to hurry. I forgot that normal people relax on holidays🙂. Happy new year

[Maksimka101]

Hello

Can we merge this?

[escamoteur]

Just saw this. besides that I think it would definitely great to get this merged, why not borrow the optimization of fast_equatable and cache the hashcode if that really improves performance that much :-)

[felangel]

Just saw this. besides that I think it would definitely great to get this merged, why not borrow the optimization of fast_equatable and cache the hashcode if that really improves performance that much :-)

Will review this later today apologies that it fell through the cracks. Looks like ci was failing but just re-triggered ci to see the logs.

[felangel]

Looks like some tests are missing. I’ll take a look at the benchmarks and will see if I can get this merged later today. Apologies for the delay!

[felangel]

@Maksimka101 I've added benchmarks and run them against the implementation on master and am seeing the following results:

branch: master

EmptyEquatable
          total runs:  2 076 295   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          0 μs
         runs/second:   Infinity
               units:        100   
        units/second:   Infinity
       time per unit:     0.0000 μs

PrimitiveEquatable
          total runs:    810 588   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          2 μs
         runs/second:    500 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 50 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0200 μs

CollectionEquatable (small)
          total runs:    443 978   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          4 μs
         runs/second:    250 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 25 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0400 μs

CollectionEquatable (medium)
          total runs:    442 368   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          4 μs
         runs/second:    250 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 25 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0400 μs

CollectionEquatable (large)
          total runs:    450 915   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          4 μs
         runs/second:    250 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 25 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0400 μs

branch: feat/performance-improvement

EmptyEquatable
          total runs:  2 069 828   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          0 μs
         runs/second:   Infinity
               units:        100   
        units/second:   Infinity
       time per unit:     0.0000 μs

PrimitiveEquatable
          total runs:    823 014   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          2 μs
         runs/second:    500 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 50 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0200 μs

CollectionEquatable (small)
          total runs:    490 253   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          4 μs
         runs/second:    250 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 25 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0400 μs

CollectionEquatable (medium)
          total runs:    494 469   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          4 μs
         runs/second:    250 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 25 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0400 μs

CollectionEquatable (large)
          total runs:    494 548   
          total time:     2.0000  s
         average run:          4 μs
         runs/second:    250 000   
               units:        100   
        units/second: 25 000 000   
       time per unit:     0.0400 μs

MacBook Pro (M1 Pro, 16GB RAM)
Dart SDK version: 3.3.4 (stable) (Tue Apr 16 19:56:12 2024 +0000) on "macos_arm64"

I'm not able to reproduce the significant performance increase you describe. Maybe DeepCollectionEquality has been optimized since you last tested?

Let me know if you're still able to reproduce the ~20% performance improvement, thanks!

[felangel]

Just saw this. besides that I think it would definitely great to get this merged, why not borrow the optimization of fast_equatable and cache the hashcode if that really improves performance that much :-)

Because the classes should be immutable (e.g. all fields should be final and have a const constructor). Classes that use package:fast_equatable are not immutable and cannot have a const constructor.