This repository contains a short package providing two benchmarks between Rcpp and another package on CRAN which we will refer to just as just 'other'.
The 'other' package comes with a motivating vignette containing a lot of discussion. Its merits ("is another package needed", "is it better to restart fresh or extend an existing package", etc) may well be discussed another time. But it also contains two benchmarks (one and two).
This note is about these two benchmarks.
One is simply outdated (and even then somewhat cheekily chosen). The other is so obviously misleading that it alone merited this note and code repository.
The first of these two covers how objects are protected, and released, internally. Rcpp initially used simple helper functions (modeled after what R does at the C level) to set (and unset) a protection bit. This was later reworked, and a further change was filed as a desiderata years ago (in issue #382). A helpful and detailed bug report stemming from inserting tens of thousands of grobs into a plot showed that with very large number of objects, performance degraded, even crashing R. This lead to a useful discussion (in issue #1018) in which for example R Core member Luke Tierney suggested an improved method (with O(1) performance) for this problem. An initial implementation revealed side-effects and was held back from the next release. However, it has since been completed (in PRs #1133 and #1135 added in January 2021), and is part of the Rcpp release 1.0.7 on CRAN.
The 'other' package freshly implemented the O(1) method and then used it for a benchmark.
That is a little, well, "obviously" dented in its favor but so be it. In any event, it is now outdated.
So running demo(release, package="ldlasb") re-runs the benchmark (based on the functions in src/release.cpp) under the current Rcpp version and shows, lo and behold, that Rcpp is consistently faster---while both perform in the promised O(1) manner.
Since the very beginning of Rcpp, it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out that push_back() and push_front() were added to complete to the API with STL-alike behavior as a convenience---but one that that should not be used for real code.
This has been stated loud and clear in many places:
starting with the original announcement in Feb 2010,
several StackOverflow answers in Dec 2011 and in Dec 2012,
a post in the the rcpp-devel list in Jun 2013,
another StackOverflow answer in Nov 2013,
an early Rcpp Gallery post in Dec 2013,
again on StackOverflow Dec 2014,
as well as in the 'Advanced R' first and second editions.
For emphasis, here is a quote from the rcpp-devel post in 2013:
Those are somehow cosmetic additions. The usual suggestion is not to use push_front and push_back on Rcpp types.
We use R's memory, and in R, resizing a vector means moving the data. So if you push_back 3 times, you're moving the data 3 times.
Using R own memory is the best ever decision we made in Rcpp. You can always use your own data structures to accumulate data, perhaps using stl types and then convert back to R types, which is something we make easy to do.
Many code examples and packages show exactly that approach (as e.g. discussed in the Rcpp Gallery post). Anybody who claims otherwise is (possibly intentionally) misleading.
Yes what does the 'other' package show in comparison?
Just that. While this could be taken as an honest mistake, it has the "smell" of yet another rather explicitly chosen comparison.
Now, if and when one actually does as the more than half-dozen very clear recommendations cited above suggests and grows an STL object then the picture changes as seen when running demo(grow, package="ldlasb") (based on the functions in src/grow.cpp):
Rcpp wins, again.
This repository contains all the code that is needed to run the two benchmarks, wrapped up in a small convenience package called ldlasb.
It cleanly passes R CMD check too.
You can install it the usual ways including via, e.g.,
remotes::install_github("eddelbuettel/ldlasb")Once the package is installed, you can reach the benchmarks via demo(release, package="ldlasb", ask=FALSE) and demo(grow, package="ldlasb", ask=FALSE), respectively.
The results shown here were generated on my standard machine (currently) running Ubuntu 20.10 with, inter alia, R 4.1.0 and g++ 10.3.0, on an i7-8700K cpu. We can expects to vary somewhat between systems and compilers, but the overall outcome should not change.
This package was written by Dirk Eddelbuettel.
Code from the 'other' package was used to reproduce / replicate the benchmarks and graphs; see here for more.
This package is licensed under the GNU GPL, Version 2 or later.