Very often if you have text, which this does, you can make huge savings by being intelligent with the text.
Rust intentionally provides the simplest possible growable string buffer String, which is literally (under the hood, you can't poke this legitimately) Vec<u8> plus the promise that this is UTF-8 text.
But you might find your needs better served by one (or several) of:
Box<str> -- you don't need capacity, so, don't store it => length == capacity
CompactString -- use the entire 24 bytes for SSO, up to 24 bytes of UTF-8 inline, obviously doesn't make sense if all or the vast majority of your strings are 25 bytes or longer
ColdString -- same idea but for 8 bytes, and also not storing capacity, this only makes sense over Box<str> if you have plenty of <= 8 byte strings
There's really an endless list of these optimizations. A few I've used (though not necessarily in rust):
Atoms: Each string can be referenced with a single u32 or even u16, and they're inherently deduplicated.
Bump allocator: your strings are &str, allocation is super fast with limited fragmentation.
Single pointer strings (this has a name, I can't think of it right now): you store the length inside the allocation instead of in each reference, so your strings are a single pointer.
> There's really an endless list of these optimizations.
These aren't really optimizations. They are specialized implementations that introduce design and architectural tradeoffs.
For example, Rust's Atom represents a string that has been interned, and it's actually an implementation of a design pattern popular in the likes of Erlang/Elixir. This is essentially a specialized implementations of the old Flyweight design pattern, where managing N independent instances of an expensive read-only object is replaced with a singleton instance that's referenced through a key handle.
I would hardly call this an optimization. It actually represents a significant change to a system's architecture. You have to introduce a set of significant architectural constraints into your system to leverage a specific tradeoff. This isn't just a tweak that makes everything run magically leaner and faster.
In my opinion, there's no magic in the software engineering. Everything (or almost everything) is a system that can be described, explained, modified and so on. Applications, libraries, operating systems, kernels, CPUs/RAM/GPU/NPU/xPU/whatever silicon there is, ALUs/etc, transistors, electricity, physics... That's nowhere near "magic". There's always some trade-offs, it's just that you may not be aware of them initially.
You might want to refresh your understanding of the word optimisation. Changing a system to be more effective/efficient is optimisation, how big that change is makes no difference.
The thing they were gesturing at, correctly, is the naming. This is of course a convention and not a promise, but by convention Goose::as_crow would be a function that is cheap and gets you say &Crow instead of the &Goose you might have now, whereas Goose::to_donkey suggests that although we can have a Donkey instead of this Goose it's expensive to do that.
Commonly as... conversions are actually no-ops at runtime (the type changes but the data does not, no CPU instructions are emitted) whereas to... conversions might do quite a lot, especially if they bring into existence an actual thing at runtime -- maybe Goose::to_donkey actually needs to go allocate memory for a Donkey and destroy the Goose.
Yes it's unsafe because the Vec doesn't enforce the promise we made about this being UTF-8 text whereas String did, so now that promise is ours to keep and `unsafe` is how we signify that you the programmer took on the responsibility for safety here.
Yes, naming does play a role here, but the biggest hint is `as_vec_mut` returning a reference. For that to work a `Vec<u8>` needs to exist somewhere, and continue to exist after this function returns. For comparison, `to_` conversions generally just return the new data, so this reasoning doesn't apply to them.
Box<T> used to be ~T early on in rust… (then it became a `box` keyword, before being removed entirely.) They got rid of it because they wanted to move more things into libraries and have a less opinionated compiler.
I think I agree though, especially with Option. Swift’s option syntax (and kotlin’s which is similar) is so much better, a simple question mark in the type. Options are important enough that dedicated syntax makes so much sense. Rust blew their chance here with ? meaning “maybe early return”, it would have been a lot more useful as an Option indicator.
I used to think this too, but nowadays I think this would have been a mistake. Result is actually the more important and fundamental type, not Option, and giving Option special syntax would cause people to want to favor it over Result even when it shouldn't be. If anything, I think that `?` should have been reserved as a suffix for function names (not types) that return Result, so that instead of `fn try_foo()` and `let x = try_foo();` we could have `fn foo?()` and `let x = foo?();`, and then the current `?` operator could just be spelled `.try`, akin to `.await`. (And then we maybe could go further and reserve `!` as a suffix for functions that can panic...)
The Try trait (representing the ? the operation) is super cool though! I wish it was marked stable so you could implement it for types without using the nightly compiler.
Note that both Option and Result implement that same trait.
Perhaps if try blocks ever become a thing... we can finally use it for our own types ;)
CompactStr doesnt have any additional runtime overhead iirc right? So in theory you can drop it in everywhere even when you expect > 25 chars. Maybe an extra branch in the >25 char case?
SSO does have overhead. Firstly, on every access you have a branch. Secondly, and more severely, the "most general" umbrella type that all string methods are defined on is a string slice, and whereas conversion from `String` to `&str` is literally a no-op, SSO strings require work to be done to convert them to string slices. Furthermore, note that in the (surprisingly common) case where the string is zero-length, String already skips the allocation, same as an SSO string.
If anyone's doing this kind of optimization, dhat-rs is worth a look, it shows you exactly which fields and call sites are eating memory, instead of just a total. Saves a lot of guessing about where to start.
tbh "trait" feels like a very problematic name for that type, for this kind of educational purpose - `trait` is already an established concept and keyword: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html
It's especially problematic because traits don't have memory behaviors like this article in most cases - by default they're unsized, because it's a description of behavior, not data, and you can't even use them as a struct field without extra work.
Like, replace "trait" in here with "box" and see how confusing it would be to be describing how you saved memory by boxing your box, because option doesn't box like many other languages do.
Are there any tools that help finding these kinds of things? Like a profiler that says "80% of the allocated bytes are objects of this type, with 95% of those having that field set to None"
It would be super useful since I think this is pretty likely to be surprising to many users. But the profiler would need to be a particularly-specific refinement of even that: you need to make it obvious that it's not "95% of your Option<Thing>s are None, and your Option<Things> are using X bytes", but that "95% of the bytes used for your Option<Thing>s are used for None versions." Otherwise you could just assume that your non-None ones are just that chunky, or you have that many of them... I haven't seen a profiler with that level of insight, unfortunately.
Perhaps because this feels like a fairly rust-specific gotcha. Especially if you're coming from languages where there's often not much syntactical distinction made between "this is a pointer because I don't want to be copying it" and "this is a pointer because it's optional."
For instance, it's not until now that I actually understood what the sibling comment about the Enum type size discrepancy lint meant: "This lint obviously cannot take the distribution of variants in your running program into account. It is possible that the smaller variants make up less than 1% of all instances, in which case the overhead is negligible and the boxing is counter-productive. Always measure the change this lint suggests." I had always accidentally read this backwards, thinking it meant something more to the effect of "if most of the instances are actually small, then it's not a problem here, but be aware that some of them are much larger so some of your calls to things with this could end up passing much larger types."
That may be surprisingly difficult in Rust. We generally think of Option<T> using O to represent None. However, it can actually use any invalid value of T
For example None of Option<OwnedFd> is the bit pattern for the integer -1, the invalid Unix file descriptor
And in this particular context None of Option<CompactString> is the bit pattern for a carefully chosen impossible 24 byte slice, all zeroes is of course a completely valid way to spell 24 of the ASCII NUL U+0000 character so we can't use that to signify None, but many 24 byte slices are not valid UTF-8 encodings.
When some day I get to make my own BalancedI8 in stable Rust (the 8-bit signed integer except without the slightly annoying and rarely needed most negative value -128) then None of Option<BalancedI8> will occupy the bit pattern for -128 which is 0x80
There is nook which does it with unstable features [1] and nonany [2] which uses xor operations to map your custom niche value to 0 so it can use the NonZero* types to achieve the same in stable rust.
Eventually rust will likely gain pattern types as a more generally useful version of the features used in nook. There is even some actively ongoing work on this [3]
So, the long answer with lots of reading material is that you want "Pattern Types" and who knows when that could land in Rust. Pattern types are a simple Refinement Type, you can go absolutely wild with refinement in theory and some niche languages go much deeper but all we want here is to say "Only these values of the type are allowed" and by implication all bit patterns not used for those values are a niche and Rust would optimise accordingly.
Rust doesn't (even unstably) have Pattern Types so you might wonder how NonZeroU32 works for example, or indeed OwnedFd, and similar types. For these types there's a permanently unstable "compiler only" feature flag which allows you to explicitly specify the niche, that's how they're made. So, if you're comfortable writing unstable nightly-only software you can do this today, go look at the guts of NonZeroU32 for example.
If you want to write Rust software for ordinary people who use stable Rust you have two options today and for the indefinite future in which Pattern Types are not stable:
1. Enumerations: An enumeration which has say 5 values clearly doesn't need byte values 0x5 through 0xFF, so Rust stably promises this is a niche. For BalancedI8 that's kinda messy with 255 values but tolerable, some real crates use this trick or one related to it and they work fine - for a hypothetical BalancedI16 it's imaginable to create 65535 values but silly, and for BalancedI32 clearly we should not expect the compiler to accept an enumeration with 4 billion+ named values so no...
2. XOR trick: Rust provides NonZeroI8 for example. We can "make" BalancedI8 by providing accessors which always XOR -128 (0x80) with the value and then actually internally we store the NonZeroI8 instead, at runtime now operations incur an extra XOR which is a very cheap ALU operation. This works for any "Not this" value because of the properties of the XOR operation, so unlike with enums this is practical for BalancedI64 for example.
The closest I am aware of is clippy (`cargo clippy` in a standard Rust project will run it with default configurations).
Clippy is essentially a linter; and one of its checks catches cases where different enum variants have a significantly different size; with a suggestion to Box the larger variant.
Since this is just a linter, it doesn't actually have any knowledge of how frequently each variant is actually used. It also doesn't address the situation in the article at all.
I've personally found heaptrack[1] pretty good for this task, very straightforward to use and the info is detailed enough. Though, it'll only tell you where they are happening (e.j. allocation rate for Box::new), but not exactly what type they are given that info isn't available at runtime. Usually that kind of thing would be reserved to GC-based languages where they keep track of counts for each object.
So there are now two ways to represent the same state: None or Some(struct whose fields are all None). Even though one of these representations is never produced by the deserialization routine, anyone could construct it if the constructor is public. And even if they don't, the different representations will show up in pattern matching as separate paths for every access to the field. This looks like a good opportunity to make these types (optimized for storage) private, and to define public view objects/accessors (optimized for usage) on top of them that merge equivalent representations.
> a lot of boxes means a fragmented heap. In such case it's not a problem but this might be worth keeping in mind.
A good malloc will be able to handle this without issue due to various optimizations specifically that inherently fight fragmentation. Default Linux malloc (glibc) may have issues but I did say good malloc (and even glibc generally shouldn’t struggle with the pattern described I think).
Box<str> is still two words (length and pointer). That's better than the 3 words (length, pointer, capacity) for strings, but Box<String> is one word (not including the heap allocation).
I wonder from time to time whether you can decide the best “schema shape” beforehand, ie before you can run real workloads that stress the memory implications of such things. This can be very useful if you are trying to decide the boundary of some public facing API, but for whatever reason can’t run benchmarks (lack of impl, data, time, etc).
Without that, if you try to suggest a transformation like this when the schema is first conceived, it will likely be considered premature optimization.
Very often if you have text, which this does, you can make huge savings by being intelligent with the text.
Rust intentionally provides the simplest possible growable string buffer String, which is literally (under the hood, you can't poke this legitimately) Vec<u8> plus the promise that this is UTF-8 text.
But you might find your needs better served by one (or several) of:
Box<str> -- you don't need capacity, so, don't store it => length == capacity
CompactString -- use the entire 24 bytes for SSO, up to 24 bytes of UTF-8 inline, obviously doesn't make sense if all or the vast majority of your strings are 25 bytes or longer
ColdString -- same idea but for 8 bytes, and also not storing capacity, this only makes sense over Box<str> if you have plenty of <= 8 byte strings
There's really an endless list of these optimizations. A few I've used (though not necessarily in rust):
Atoms: Each string can be referenced with a single u32 or even u16, and they're inherently deduplicated.
Bump allocator: your strings are &str, allocation is super fast with limited fragmentation.
Single pointer strings (this has a name, I can't think of it right now): you store the length inside the allocation instead of in each reference, so your strings are a single pointer.
Atoms: is this similar to interned strings?
> Atoms: is this similar to interned strings?
Yes. It is exactly how they are described.
https://docs.rs/string_cache/latest/string_cache/struct.Atom...
> Represents a string that has been interned.
> There's really an endless list of these optimizations.
These aren't really optimizations. They are specialized implementations that introduce design and architectural tradeoffs.
For example, Rust's Atom represents a string that has been interned, and it's actually an implementation of a design pattern popular in the likes of Erlang/Elixir. This is essentially a specialized implementations of the old Flyweight design pattern, where managing N independent instances of an expensive read-only object is replaced with a singleton instance that's referenced through a key handle.
I would hardly call this an optimization. It actually represents a significant change to a system's architecture. You have to introduce a set of significant architectural constraints into your system to leverage a specific tradeoff. This isn't just a tweak that makes everything run magically leaner and faster.
> everything run magically leaner and faster
In my opinion, there's no magic in the software engineering. Everything (or almost everything) is a system that can be described, explained, modified and so on. Applications, libraries, operating systems, kernels, CPUs/RAM/GPU/NPU/xPU/whatever silicon there is, ALUs/etc, transistors, electricity, physics... That's nowhere near "magic". There's always some trade-offs, it's just that you may not be aware of them initially.
You might want to refresh your understanding of the word optimisation. Changing a system to be more effective/efficient is optimisation, how big that change is makes no difference.
> String, which is literally (under the hood, you can't poke this legitimately) Vec<u8>
`String::as_vec_mut` kinda implies that, since it gives you access to that underlying `Vec` which must then exist somewhere.
I looked it up: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/string/struct.String.html#meth...
In case anyone else was wondering it, yes, it's "unsafe".
The thing they were gesturing at, correctly, is the naming. This is of course a convention and not a promise, but by convention Goose::as_crow would be a function that is cheap and gets you say &Crow instead of the &Goose you might have now, whereas Goose::to_donkey suggests that although we can have a Donkey instead of this Goose it's expensive to do that.
Commonly as... conversions are actually no-ops at runtime (the type changes but the data does not, no CPU instructions are emitted) whereas to... conversions might do quite a lot, especially if they bring into existence an actual thing at runtime -- maybe Goose::to_donkey actually needs to go allocate memory for a Donkey and destroy the Goose.
Yes it's unsafe because the Vec doesn't enforce the promise we made about this being UTF-8 text whereas String did, so now that promise is ours to keep and `unsafe` is how we signify that you the programmer took on the responsibility for safety here.
Yes, naming does play a role here, but the biggest hint is `as_vec_mut` returning a reference. For that to work a `Vec<u8>` needs to exist somewhere, and continue to exist after this function returns. For comparison, `to_` conversions generally just return the new data, so this reasoning doesn't apply to them.
I wish Box and Option got specialized specialized shorthand syntax in Rust say `^`/ `? or something like that.
Box<T> used to be ~T early on in rust… (then it became a `box` keyword, before being removed entirely.) They got rid of it because they wanted to move more things into libraries and have a less opinionated compiler.
I think I agree though, especially with Option. Swift’s option syntax (and kotlin’s which is similar) is so much better, a simple question mark in the type. Options are important enough that dedicated syntax makes so much sense. Rust blew their chance here with ? meaning “maybe early return”, it would have been a lot more useful as an Option indicator.
I used to think this too, but nowadays I think this would have been a mistake. Result is actually the more important and fundamental type, not Option, and giving Option special syntax would cause people to want to favor it over Result even when it shouldn't be. If anything, I think that `?` should have been reserved as a suffix for function names (not types) that return Result, so that instead of `fn try_foo()` and `let x = try_foo();` we could have `fn foo?()` and `let x = foo?();`, and then the current `?` operator could just be spelled `.try`, akin to `.await`. (And then we maybe could go further and reserve `!` as a suffix for functions that can panic...)
The Try trait (representing the ? the operation) is super cool though! I wish it was marked stable so you could implement it for types without using the nightly compiler.
Note that both Option and Result implement that same trait.
Perhaps if try blocks ever become a thing... we can finally use it for our own types ;)
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ops/trait.Try.html
CompactStr doesnt have any additional runtime overhead iirc right? So in theory you can drop it in everywhere even when you expect > 25 chars. Maybe an extra branch in the >25 char case?
SSO does have overhead. Firstly, on every access you have a branch. Secondly, and more severely, the "most general" umbrella type that all string methods are defined on is a string slice, and whereas conversion from `String` to `&str` is literally a no-op, SSO strings require work to be done to convert them to string slices. Furthermore, note that in the (surprisingly common) case where the string is zero-length, String already skips the allocation, same as an SSO string.
If anyone's doing this kind of optimization, dhat-rs is worth a look, it shows you exactly which fields and call sites are eating memory, instead of just a total. Saves a lot of guessing about where to start.
thanks for this :>
tbh "trait" feels like a very problematic name for that type, for this kind of educational purpose - `trait` is already an established concept and keyword: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html
It's especially problematic because traits don't have memory behaviors like this article in most cases - by default they're unsized, because it's a description of behavior, not data, and you can't even use them as a struct field without extra work.
Like, replace "trait" in here with "box" and see how confusing it would be to be describing how you saved memory by boxing your box, because option doesn't box like many other languages do.
Are there any tools that help finding these kinds of things? Like a profiler that says "80% of the allocated bytes are objects of this type, with 95% of those having that field set to None"
It would be super useful since I think this is pretty likely to be surprising to many users. But the profiler would need to be a particularly-specific refinement of even that: you need to make it obvious that it's not "95% of your Option<Thing>s are None, and your Option<Things> are using X bytes", but that "95% of the bytes used for your Option<Thing>s are used for None versions." Otherwise you could just assume that your non-None ones are just that chunky, or you have that many of them... I haven't seen a profiler with that level of insight, unfortunately.
Perhaps because this feels like a fairly rust-specific gotcha. Especially if you're coming from languages where there's often not much syntactical distinction made between "this is a pointer because I don't want to be copying it" and "this is a pointer because it's optional."
For instance, it's not until now that I actually understood what the sibling comment about the Enum type size discrepancy lint meant: "This lint obviously cannot take the distribution of variants in your running program into account. It is possible that the smaller variants make up less than 1% of all instances, in which case the overhead is negligible and the boxing is counter-productive. Always measure the change this lint suggests." I had always accidentally read this backwards, thinking it meant something more to the effect of "if most of the instances are actually small, then it's not a problem here, but be aware that some of them are much larger so some of your calls to things with this could end up passing much larger types."
"You have 400 megabytes of zeros in <this type>" is probably a pretty easy heuristic to add.
That may be surprisingly difficult in Rust. We generally think of Option<T> using O to represent None. However, it can actually use any invalid value of T
For example None of Option<OwnedFd> is the bit pattern for the integer -1, the invalid Unix file descriptor
And in this particular context None of Option<CompactString> is the bit pattern for a carefully chosen impossible 24 byte slice, all zeroes is of course a completely valid way to spell 24 of the ASCII NUL U+0000 character so we can't use that to signify None, but many 24 byte slices are not valid UTF-8 encodings.
When some day I get to make my own BalancedI8 in stable Rust (the 8-bit signed integer except without the slightly annoying and rarely needed most negative value -128) then None of Option<BalancedI8> will occupy the bit pattern for -128 which is 0x80
I often wish this type existed, but didn't find a way to define the niche value for the compiler to optimize the None-case.
Do you know a solution to this?
There is nook which does it with unstable features [1] and nonany [2] which uses xor operations to map your custom niche value to 0 so it can use the NonZero* types to achieve the same in stable rust.
Eventually rust will likely gain pattern types as a more generally useful version of the features used in nook. There is even some actively ongoing work on this [3]
1: https://github.com/tialaramex/nook/blob/main/src/balanced.rs
2: https://github.com/rick-de-water/nonany
3: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135996
I suppose you are thinking of BalancedI8 ?
So, the long answer with lots of reading material is that you want "Pattern Types" and who knows when that could land in Rust. Pattern types are a simple Refinement Type, you can go absolutely wild with refinement in theory and some niche languages go much deeper but all we want here is to say "Only these values of the type are allowed" and by implication all bit patterns not used for those values are a niche and Rust would optimise accordingly.
Rust doesn't (even unstably) have Pattern Types so you might wonder how NonZeroU32 works for example, or indeed OwnedFd, and similar types. For these types there's a permanently unstable "compiler only" feature flag which allows you to explicitly specify the niche, that's how they're made. So, if you're comfortable writing unstable nightly-only software you can do this today, go look at the guts of NonZeroU32 for example.
If you want to write Rust software for ordinary people who use stable Rust you have two options today and for the indefinite future in which Pattern Types are not stable:
1. Enumerations: An enumeration which has say 5 values clearly doesn't need byte values 0x5 through 0xFF, so Rust stably promises this is a niche. For BalancedI8 that's kinda messy with 255 values but tolerable, some real crates use this trick or one related to it and they work fine - for a hypothetical BalancedI16 it's imaginable to create 65535 values but silly, and for BalancedI32 clearly we should not expect the compiler to accept an enumeration with 4 billion+ named values so no...
2. XOR trick: Rust provides NonZeroI8 for example. We can "make" BalancedI8 by providing accessors which always XOR -128 (0x80) with the value and then actually internally we store the NonZeroI8 instead, at runtime now operations incur an extra XOR which is a very cheap ALU operation. This works for any "Not this" value because of the properties of the XOR operation, so unlike with enums this is practical for BalancedI64 for example.
The closest I am aware of is clippy (`cargo clippy` in a standard Rust project will run it with default configurations).
Clippy is essentially a linter; and one of its checks catches cases where different enum variants have a significantly different size; with a suggestion to Box the larger variant.
Since this is just a linter, it doesn't actually have any knowledge of how frequently each variant is actually used. It also doesn't address the situation in the article at all.
Specifically this lint: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#la...
I've personally found heaptrack[1] pretty good for this task, very straightforward to use and the info is detailed enough. Though, it'll only tell you where they are happening (e.j. allocation rate for Box::new), but not exactly what type they are given that info isn't available at runtime. Usually that kind of thing would be reserved to GC-based languages where they keep track of counts for each object.
1: https://github.com/kde/heaptrack
I'm a huge fan of perfetto. It requires some manual steps to get working with Linux, but it's a great tool: https://perfetto.dev/docs/data-sources/native-heap-profiler#...
I think the number of instances should be a clue that you need to look at the layout.
So there are now two ways to represent the same state: None or Some(struct whose fields are all None). Even though one of these representations is never produced by the deserialization routine, anyone could construct it if the constructor is public. And even if they don't, the different representations will show up in pattern matching as separate paths for every access to the field. This looks like a good opportunity to make these types (optimized for storage) private, and to define public view objects/accessors (optimized for usage) on top of them that merge equivalent representations.
Small correction:
> a lot of boxes means a fragmented heap. In such case it's not a problem but this might be worth keeping in mind.
A good malloc will be able to handle this without issue due to various optimizations specifically that inherently fight fragmentation. Default Linux malloc (glibc) may have issues but I did say good malloc (and even glibc generally shouldn’t struggle with the pattern described I think).
I quite often have this issue with async. You get a state machine that is huge because of how Rust builds it.
This clippy lint does a good job of warning you when this might happen: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html?se...
std::alloc::Allocator when?
[Edit:deleted]
Box<str> is still two words (length and pointer). That's better than the 3 words (length, pointer, capacity) for strings, but Box<String> is one word (not including the heap allocation).
I wonder from time to time whether you can decide the best “schema shape” beforehand, ie before you can run real workloads that stress the memory implications of such things. This can be very useful if you are trying to decide the boundary of some public facing API, but for whatever reason can’t run benchmarks (lack of impl, data, time, etc).
Without that, if you try to suggest a transformation like this when the schema is first conceived, it will likely be considered premature optimization.
TLDR: use a nullable pointer instead of fields in nested structs to save memory.