Skip to content

Add new Performance/SortReverse cop #130

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
koic merged 1 commit into from
Jun 8, 2020
Merged

Add new Performance/SortReverse cop #130

koic merged 1 commit into from
Jun 8, 2020

Conversation

@fatkodima
Copy link
Contributor

@fatkodima fatkodima commented Jun 7, 2020

It is much faster to just use sort.reverse than explicitly specifying block with code to sort in reverse order.

# bad
array.sort { |a, b| b <=> a }

# good
array.sort.reverse

Benchmark

# frozen_string_literal: true

require 'bundler/inline'
require 'securerandom'

gemfile(true) do
  gem 'benchmark-ips'
end

ARR10 = 10.times.map { rand(1000) }
ARR1000 = 1000.times.map { rand(1000) }
ARR1000000 = 1000000.times.map { rand(1000) }

ARR_HEXES = 100.times.map { SecureRandom.hex(13) }

puts "======== Hexes ========"

Benchmark.ips do |x|
  x.report("sort.reverse")   { ARR_HEXES.sort.reverse }
  x.report("sort { ... }")   { ARR_HEXES.sort { |a, b| b <=> a } }
  x.compare!
end

puts "======== 10 ========"

Benchmark.ips do |x|
  x.report("sort.reverse")   { ARR10.sort.reverse }
  x.report("sort { ... }")  { ARR10.sort { |a, b| b <=> a } }
  x.compare!
end

puts "======== 1000 ========"

Benchmark.ips do |x|
  x.report("sort.reverse")   { ARR1000.sort.reverse }
  x.report("sort { ... }")  { ARR1000.sort { |a, b| b <=> a } }
  x.compare!
end

puts "======== 1_000_000 ========"

Benchmark.ips do |x|
  x.report("sort.reverse")   { ARR1000000.sort.reverse }
  x.report("sort { ... }")  { ARR1000000.sort { |a, b| b <=> a } }
  x.compare!
end

Result

======== Hexes ========
Warming up --------------------------------------
        sort.reverse     8.289k i/100ms
        sort { ... }     1.697k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
        sort.reverse     78.920k (± 7.1%) i/s -    397.872k in   5.069228s
        sort { ... }     16.214k (± 4.9%) i/s -     81.456k in   5.036694s

Comparison:
        sort.reverse:    78920.2 i/s
        sort { ... }:    16213.6 i/s - 4.87x  (± 0.00) slower

======== 10 ========
Warming up --------------------------------------
        sort.reverse   126.334k i/100ms
        sort { ... }    38.479k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
        sort.reverse      1.160M (±11.6%) i/s -      5.811M in   5.087874s
        sort { ... }    390.459k (± 2.2%) i/s -      1.962M in   5.028543s

Comparison:
        sort.reverse:  1160136.0 i/s
        sort { ... }:   390458.9 i/s - 2.97x  (± 0.00) slower

======== 1000 ========
Warming up --------------------------------------
        sort.reverse   963.000  i/100ms
        sort { ... }   145.000  i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
        sort.reverse      9.567k (± 6.7%) i/s -     48.150k in   5.059807s
        sort { ... }      1.441k (± 2.2%) i/s -      7.250k in   5.034868s

Comparison:
        sort.reverse:     9566.7 i/s
        sort { ... }:     1440.7 i/s - 6.64x  (± 0.00) slower

======== 1_000_000 ========
Warming up --------------------------------------
        sort.reverse     1.000  i/100ms
        sort { ... }     1.000  i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
        sort.reverse      9.747  (± 0.0%) i/s -     49.000  in   5.030332s
        sort { ... }      1.461  (± 0.0%) i/s -      8.000  in   5.474954s

Comparison:
        sort.reverse:        9.7 i/s
        sort { ... }:        1.5 i/s - 6.67x  (± 0.00) slower

koic
koic reviewed Jun 8, 2020
View reviewed changes
koic
koic reviewed Jun 8, 2020
View reviewed changes
@fatkodima
Copy link
Contributor Author

fatkodima commented Jun 8, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Updated.

Wdyt about renaming this cop to SortWithBlock and adding #132 functionality to this?
Or that should be better implemented as a separate cop?

@koic
Copy link
Member

koic commented Jun 8, 2020

Yeah. I think that they should be separated into different cops of CompareWithBlock, SortReverse, and RedundantSortBlock because they have different roles.

koic
koic reviewed Jun 8, 2020
View reviewed changes
@koic koic merged commit bda0a63 into rubocop:master Jun 8, 2020
@koic
Copy link
Member

koic commented Jun 8, 2020

Thanks!

tas50 added a commit to chef/chef that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2020
@tas50
Use sort.reverse instead of sort { |a, b| b <=> a }
a6fc057 
It's faster. See rubocop/rubocop-performance#130

Signed-off-by: Tim Smith <[email protected]>
@tas50 tas50 mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@koic koic koic left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@fatkodima @koic