Contest: fastet way to redefine a method

ruby-talk
1

Hi,

Dan Berger's recent thread about using UnboundMethod#bind to redefine an existing method reminded me of a problem I still have:

   What is the fastest way to redefine an existing method?

With "fast" I don't mean the process of redefining the method, but the time it takes to actually call the new implementation.

With "redefining an existing method" I mean changing the implementation of an existing method so that in the new implementation it is possible to call the old one and use its return value.

I've seen many different techniques in the past here on ruby-talk, but I haven't looked at the tradeoffs. I promise to write a page on the ruby garden wiki with the results.

Regards,
Pit

2

Pit Capitain wrote:

Hi,

Dan Berger's recent thread about using UnboundMethod#bind to redefine an
existing method reminded me of a problem I still have:

   What is the fastest way to redefine an existing method?

With "fast" I don't mean the process of redefining the method, but the
time it takes to actually call the new implementation.

With "redefining an existing method" I mean changing the implementation
of an existing method so that in the new implementation it is possible
to call the old one and use its return value.

I've seen many different techniques in the past here on ruby-talk, but I
haven't looked at the tradeoffs. I promise to write a page on the ruby
garden wiki with the results.

Regards,
Pit

A cut is going to be just about the fastest I think since it is
essentially a subclass, although defining the "wrapping" method
requires a bit of additional overhead. Alias certainly has the least
overhead. I imagine before and after wraps as matz has suggested for
Ruby 2.0 would be faster, albiet they are more limited in capability
than cuts.

Keep in mind that every "wrap" will have a benchmark greater than the
orginal by neccessity b/c includes the originals call --so what's
really of interest is the difference from the original. Consdiering
that it is clear what the fastest way would be. To literally extract
the source code of the oringal method and wrap it via string
manipulation and eval the result as the new method. Of course, that's
not all that practical -- for starters I think you would need something
like ParseTree to even pull it off.

Anyway here's Ara's benchmarks with cuts/subclass added:

···

#
# Alias
#
class HashUsingAlias < Hash
    alias :old_hset :=

    def =(key, value)
      self.old_hset(key, value)
    end
end

#
# Bind
#
class HashUsingBind < Hash
    hset = self.instance_method(:=)

    define_method(:=) do |key, value|
      hset.bind(self).call(key, value)
    end
end

#
# Override
#
require 'override'
class HashUsingOverride < Hash
   override('='){ def =(k,v) super end }
end

#
# Subclass
#
class HashUsingSubClass < Hash
  def =(k,v)
    super
  end
end

#
# Cut (pure ruby meta-hacking version)
#
require 'facets/more/cut'
class HashUsingCut < Hash; end

cut :HashUsingCutAspect < HashUsingCut do
  def =(k,v); super; end
end

require "benchmark"
def bm_report bm, title, hash_class
   hash = hash_class.new
   bm.report title do
     100_000.times do
       hash[ 1 ] = 1
     end
   end
end

Benchmark.bmbm do |bm|
   bm_report bm, "original", Hash
   bm_report bm, "alias", HashUsingAlias
   bm_report bm, "bind", HashUsingBind
   bm_report bm, "override", HashUsingOverride
   bm_report bm, "subclass", HashUsingSubClass
   bm_report bm, "cut", HashUsingCut
end

Rehearsal --------------------------------------------
original 0.100000 0.020000 0.120000 ( 0.125107)
alias 0.180000 0.030000 0.210000 ( 0.226911)
bind 0.460000 0.050000 0.510000 ( 0.525037)
override 0.590000 0.030000 0.620000 ( 0.630301)
subclass 0.170000 0.030000 0.200000 ( 0.210436)
cut 0.170000 0.030000 0.200000 ( 0.210003)
----------------------------------- total: 1.860000sec

               user system total real
original 0.100000 0.010000 0.110000 ( 0.123498)
alias 0.170000 0.040000 0.210000 ( 0.224580)
bind 0.480000 0.030000 0.510000 ( 0.529366)
override 0.570000 0.050000 0.620000 ( 0.626580)
subclass 0.170000 0.030000 0.200000 ( 0.214458)
cut 0.170000 0.030000 0.200000 ( 0.209727)

3

  What is the fastest way to redefine an existing method?

With "fast" I don't mean the process of redefining the method, but the time it takes to actually call the new implementation.

So you mean runtime efficiency.

With "redefining an existing method" I mean changing the implementation of an existing method so that in the new implementation it is possible to call the old one and use its return value.

I once cooked something together. The code is on Ruby Garden:
http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/MethodHooks

No idea about performance etc. At some point I stopped working on this because it was said that Ruby 2 will include a feature for this. I remember that there were some limitations (i.e. no suppport for blocks so far) but usability is ok IMHO. This was mostly an experiment.

Kind regards

  robert

···

On 27.12.2006 17:59, Pit Capitain wrote:

4

I already did this:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-define_method

You can probably match def for speed by using one of the eval methods.

···

On Dec 27, 2006, at 08:59, Pit Capitain wrote:

Dan Berger's recent thread about using UnboundMethod#bind to redefine an existing method reminded me of a problem I still have:

  What is the fastest way to redefine an existing method?

With "fast" I don't mean the process of redefining the method, but the time it takes to actually call the new implementation.

With "redefining an existing method" I mean changing the implementation of an existing method so that in the new implementation it is possible to call the old one and use its return value.

I've seen many different techniques in the past here on ruby-talk, but I haven't looked at the tradeoffs. I promise to write a page on the ruby garden wiki with the results.

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

5

did you mean to say 'evil methods' :wink:

-a

···

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

I already did this:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-define_method

You can probably match def for speed by using one of the eval methods.

--
if you find yourself slandering anybody, first imagine that your mouth is
filled with excrement. it will break you of the habit quickly enough. - the
dalai lama

6

Post Not Found....

···

On Dec 27, 5:09 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-
define_method

7

Eric Hodel schrieb:

I promise to write a page on the ruby garden wiki with the results.

I already did this:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-define_method

Eric, thanks for the link. I'm sure these numbers will help, but they are not exactly what I'm looking for. I'm looking for different techniques to redefine a method in a way that still allows to call the previous implementation. Personally, I'm mostly interested in fast techniques, so your benchmark is very welcome.

Regards,
Pit

···

On Dec 27, 2006, at 08:59, Pit Capitain wrote:

8

There's no need to use the evil eval:

$ parse_tree_show
class X; class_eval { def y() 5; end } end
[[:class,
   :X,
   [:const, :Object],
   [:defn, :y, [:scope, [:block, [:args], [:lit, 5]]]]]]

Which generates the same AST as a regular def:

$ parse_tree_show
class X; def y() 5; end; end
[[:class,
   :X,
   [:const, :Object],
   [:defn, :y, [:scope, [:block, [:args], [:lit, 5]]]]]]

If you use alias, the aliased method will be slightly slower:

$ parse_tree_show
class X; def y(); 5 end; alias x y; end
[[:class,
   :X,
   [:const, :Object],
   [:defn, :x, [:fbody, [:scope, [:block, [:args], [:lit, 5]]]]],
   [:defn, :y, [:scope, [:block, [:args], [:lit, 5]]]]]]

But you can use ruby2ruby to regenerate the aliased method without the :fbody node (or, just inline it). I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.

···

On Dec 27, 2006, at 14:26, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

I already did this:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-define_method

You can probably match def for speed by using one of the eval methods.

did you mean to say 'evil methods' :wink:

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

9

Lies.

···

On Dec 27, 2006, at 16:35, Trans wrote:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-define_method

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

10

Looks like your mail reader is inserting hard line breaks.
-Mat

···

On Dec 27, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Trans wrote:

On Dec 27, 5:09 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-
define_method

Post Not Found....

11

sorry - just trying to be punny!

-a

···

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

On Dec 27, 2006, at 14:26, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

I already did this:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs- define_method

You can probably match def for speed by using one of the eval methods.

did you mean to say 'evil methods' :wink:

There's no need to use the evil eval:

--
if you find yourself slandering anybody, first imagine that your mouth is
filled with excrement. it will break you of the habit quickly enough. - the
dalai lama

12

Mat Schaffer wrote:

···

On Dec 27, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Trans wrote:
> On Dec 27, 5:09 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
>>
>> http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/06/attr-vs-method-vs-
>> define_method
>
> Post Not Found....

Looks like your mail reader is inserting hard line breaks.

Interesting I'm using the google groups interface. I just noticed teh
address is split on Eric's post, but prefectly whole on Ara's. Strange.

T.