mirror of
				https://github.com/python/cpython.git
				synced 2025-10-25 18:54:53 +00:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
		
			149 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			6 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			149 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			6 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
| NOTES ON DICTIONARIES
 | |
| ================================
 | |
| 
 | |
| Principal Use Cases for Dictionaries
 | |
| ------------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| Passing keyword arguments
 | |
|     Typically, one read and one write for 1 to 3 elements.
 | |
|     Occurs frequently in normal python code.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Class method lookup
 | |
|     Dictionaries vary in size with 8 to 16 elements being common.
 | |
|     Usually written once with many lookups.
 | |
|     When base classes are used, there are many failed lookups
 | |
|         followed by a lookup in a base class.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Instance attribute lookup and Global variables
 | |
|     Dictionaries vary in size.  4 to 10 elements are common.
 | |
|     Both reads and writes are common.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Builtins
 | |
|     Frequent reads.  Almost never written.
 | |
|     About 150 interned strings (as of Py3.3).
 | |
|     A few keys are accessed much more frequently than others.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Uniquification
 | |
|     Dictionaries of any size.  Bulk of work is in creation.
 | |
|     Repeated writes to a smaller set of keys.
 | |
|     Single read of each key.
 | |
|     Some use cases have two consecutive accesses to the same key.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * Removing duplicates from a sequence.
 | |
|         dict.fromkeys(seqn).keys()
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * Counting elements in a sequence.
 | |
|         for e in seqn:
 | |
|           d[e] = d.get(e,0) + 1
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * Accumulating references in a dictionary of lists:
 | |
| 
 | |
|         for pagenumber, page in enumerate(pages):
 | |
|           for word in page:
 | |
|             d.setdefault(word, []).append(pagenumber)
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Note, the second example is a use case characterized by a get and set
 | |
|     to the same key.  There are similar use cases with a __contains__
 | |
|     followed by a get, set, or del to the same key.  Part of the
 | |
|     justification for d.setdefault is combining the two lookups into one.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Membership Testing
 | |
|     Dictionaries of any size.  Created once and then rarely changes.
 | |
|     Single write to each key.
 | |
|     Many calls to __contains__() or has_key().
 | |
|     Similar access patterns occur with replacement dictionaries
 | |
|         such as with the % formatting operator.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Dynamic Mappings
 | |
|     Characterized by deletions interspersed with adds and replacements.
 | |
|     Performance benefits greatly from the re-use of dummy entries.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Data Layout
 | |
| -----------
 | |
| 
 | |
| Dictionaries are composed of 3 components:
 | |
| The dictobject struct itself
 | |
| A dict-keys object (keys & hashes)
 | |
| A values array
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| Tunable Dictionary Parameters
 | |
| -----------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| See comments for PyDict_MINSIZE_SPLIT, PyDict_MINSIZE_COMBINED,
 | |
| USABLE_FRACTION and GROWTH_RATE in dictobject.c
 | |
| 
 | |
| Tune-ups should be measured across a broad range of applications and
 | |
| use cases.  A change to any parameter will help in some situations and
 | |
| hurt in others.  The key is to find settings that help the most common
 | |
| cases and do the least damage to the less common cases.  Results will
 | |
| vary dramatically depending on the exact number of keys, whether the
 | |
| keys are all strings, whether reads or writes dominate, the exact
 | |
| hash values of the keys (some sets of values have fewer collisions than
 | |
| others).  Any one test or benchmark is likely to prove misleading.
 | |
| 
 | |
| While making a dictionary more sparse reduces collisions, it impairs
 | |
| iteration and key listing.  Those methods loop over every potential
 | |
| entry.  Doubling the size of dictionary results in twice as many
 | |
| non-overlapping memory accesses for keys(), items(), values(),
 | |
| __iter__(), iterkeys(), iteritems(), itervalues(), and update().
 | |
| Also, every dictionary iterates at least twice, once for the memset()
 | |
| when it is created and once by dealloc().
 | |
| 
 | |
| Dictionary operations involving only a single key can be O(1) unless
 | |
| resizing is possible.  By checking for a resize only when the
 | |
| dictionary can grow (and may *require* resizing), other operations
 | |
| remain O(1), and the odds of resize thrashing or memory fragmentation
 | |
| are reduced. In particular, an algorithm that empties a dictionary
 | |
| by repeatedly invoking .pop will see no resizing, which might
 | |
| not be necessary at all because the dictionary is eventually
 | |
| discarded entirely.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The key differences between this implementation and earlier versions are:
 | |
|     1. The table can be split into two parts, the keys and the values.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     2. There is an additional key-value combination: (key, NULL).
 | |
|        Unlike (<dummy>, NULL) which represents a deleted value, (key, NULL)
 | |
|        represented a yet to be inserted value. This combination can only occur
 | |
|        when the table is split.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     3. No small table embedded in the dict,
 | |
|        as this would make sharing of key-tables impossible.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| These changes have the following consequences.
 | |
|    1. General dictionaries are slightly larger.
 | |
| 
 | |
|    2. All object dictionaries of a single class can share a single key-table,
 | |
|       saving about 60% memory for such cases.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Results of Cache Locality Experiments
 | |
| --------------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| Experiments on an earlier design of dictionary, in which all tables were
 | |
| combined, showed the following:
 | |
| 
 | |
|   When an entry is retrieved from memory, several adjacent entries are also
 | |
|   retrieved into a cache line.  Since accessing items in cache is *much*
 | |
|   cheaper than a cache miss, an enticing idea is to probe the adjacent
 | |
|   entries as a first step in collision resolution.  Unfortunately, the
 | |
|   introduction of any regularity into collision searches results in more
 | |
|   collisions than the current random chaining approach.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   Exploiting cache locality at the expense of additional collisions fails
 | |
|   to payoff when the entries are already loaded in cache (the expense
 | |
|   is paid with no compensating benefit).  This occurs in small dictionaries
 | |
|   where the whole dictionary fits into a pair of cache lines.  It also
 | |
|   occurs frequently in large dictionaries which have a common access pattern
 | |
|   where some keys are accessed much more frequently than others.  The
 | |
|   more popular entries *and* their collision chains tend to remain in cache.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   To exploit cache locality, change the collision resolution section
 | |
|   in lookdict() and lookdict_string().  Set i^=1 at the top of the
 | |
|   loop and move the  i = (i << 2) + i + perturb + 1 to an unrolled
 | |
|   version of the loop.
 | |
| 
 | |
| For split tables, the above will apply to the keys, but the value will
 | |
| always be in a different cache line from the key.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | 
