mirror of
				https://github.com/python/cpython.git
				synced 2025-11-03 19:34:08 +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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 |