Node.js / coffeescript performance on a math-intensive algorithm_问答_开发者

I am experimenting with node.js to build some server-side logic, and have implemented a version of the diamond-square algorithm described here in coffeescript and Java. Given all the praise I have heard for node.js and V8 performance, I was hoping that node.js would not lag too far behind the java version.

However on a 4096x4096 map, Java finishes in under 1s but node.js/coffeescript takes over 20s on my machine...

These are my full results. x-axis is grid size. Log and linear charts:

Node.js / coffeescript performance on a math-intensive algorithm

Is this because there is something wrong with my coffeescript implementation, or is this just the nature of node.js still?

Coffeescript

genHeightField = (sz) ->
    timeStart = new Date()

    DATA_SIZE = sz
    SEED = 1000.0
    data = new Array()
    iters = 0

    # warm up the arrays to tell the js engine these are dense arrays
    # seems to have neligible effect when running on node.js though
    for rows in [0...DATA_SIZE]
        data[rows] = new Array();
        for cols in [0...DATA_SIZE]
            data[rows][cols] = 0

    data[0][0] = data[0][DATA_SIZE-1] = data[DATA_SIZE-1][0] = 
      data[DATA_SIZE-1][DATA_SIZE-1] = SEED;

    h = 500.0
    sideLength = DATA_SIZE-1
    while sideLength >= 2
      halfSide = sideLength / 2

      for x in [0...DATA_SIZE-1] by sideLength
          for y in [0...DATA_SIZE-1] by sideLength
              avg = data[x][y] +
                  data[x + sideLength][y] +
                  data[x][y + sideLength] +
                  data[x + sideLength][y + sideLength]
              avg /= 4.0;

              data[x + halfSide][y + halfSide] = 
                  avg + Math.random() * (2 * h) - h;
              iters++
              #console.log "A:" + x + "," + y

      for x in [0...DATA_SIZE-1] by halfSide
        y = (x + halfSide) % sideLength
        while y < DATA_SIZE-1
          avg = 
            data[(x-halfSide+DATA_SIZE-1)%(DATA_SIZE-1)][y]
            data[(x+halfSide)%(DATA_SIZE-1)][y]
            data[x][(y+halfSide)%(DATA_SIZE-1)]
            data[x][(y-halfSide+DATA_SIZE-1)%(DATA_SIZE-1)]
          avg /= 4.0;

          avg = avg + Math.random() * (2 * h) - h;
          data[x][y] = avg;

          if x is 0
            data[DATA_SIZE-1][y] = avg;
          if y is 0  
            data[x][DATA_SIZE-1] = avg;
          #console.log "B: " + x + "," + y
          y += sideLength
          iters++
      sideLength /= 2
      h /= 2.0

    #console.log iters
    console.log (new Date() - timeStart)

genHeightField(256+1)
genHeightField(512+1)
genHeightField(1024+1)
genHeightField(2048+1)
genHeightField(4096+1)

Java

import java.util.Random;

class Gen {

    public static void main(String args[]) {
        genHeight(256+1);
        genHeight(512+1);
        genHeight(1024+1);
        genHeight(2048+1);
        genHeight(4096+1);
    }

    public static void genHeight(int sz) {
        long timeStart = System.currentTimeMillis();
        int iters = 0;

        final int DATA_SIZE = sz;
        final double SEED = 1000.0;
        double[][] data = new double[DATA_SIZE][DATA_SIZE];
        data[0][0] = data[0][DATA_SIZE-1] = data[DATA_SIZE-1][0] = 
                data[DATA_SIZE-1][DATA_SIZE-1] = SEED;

        double h = 500.0;
        Random r = new Random();
        for(int sideLength = DATA_SIZE-1;
            sideLength >= 2;
            sideLength /=2, h/= 2.0){
          int halfSide = sideLength/2;

          for(int x=0;x<DATA_SIZE-1;x+=sideLength){
            for(int y=0;y<DATA_SIZE-1;y+=sideLength){
              double avg = data[x][y] + 
                      data[x+sideLength][y] +
                      data[x][y+sideLength] + 
                      data[x+sideLength][y+sideLength];
              avg /= 4.0;

              data[x+halfSide][y+halfSide] = 
                  avg + (r.nextDouble()*2*h) - h;

              iters++;
              //System.out.println("A:" + x + "," + y);
            }
          }

          for(int x=0;x<DATA_SIZE-1;x+=halfSide){
            for(int y=(x+halfSide)%sideLength;y<DATA_SIZE-1;y+=sideLength){
              double avg = 
                    data[(x-halfSide+DATA_SIZE-1)%(DATA_SIZE-1)][y] + 
                    data[(x+halfSide)%(DATA_SIZE-1)][y] + 
                    data[x][(y+halfSide)%(DATA_SIZE-1)] + 
                    data[x][(y-halfSide+DATA_SIZE-1)%(DATA_SIZE-1)]; 
              avg /= 4.0;

              avg = avg + (r.nextDouble()*2*h) - h;
              data[x][y] = avg;

              if(x == 0)  data[DATA_SIZE-1][y] = avg;
              if(y == 0)  data[x][DATA_SIZE-1] = avg;

              iters++;
              //System.out.println("B:" + x + "," + y);
            }
          }
        }
        //System.out.print(iters +" ");
        System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - t开发者_运维知识库imeStart);
    }

}

As other answerers have pointed out, JavaScript's arrays are a major performance bottleneck for the type of operations you're doing. Because they're dynamic, it's naturally much slower to access elements than it is with Java's static arrays.

The good news is that there is an emerging standard for statically typed arrays in JavaScript, already supported in some browsers. Though not yet supported in Node proper, you can easily add them with a library: https://github.com/tlrobinson/v8-typed-array

After installing typed-array via npm, here's my modified version of your code:

{Float32Array} = require 'typed-array'

genHeightField = (sz) ->
    timeStart = new Date()
    DATA_SIZE = sz
    SEED = 1000.0
    iters = 0

    # Initialize 2D array of floats
    data = new Array(DATA_SIZE)
    for rows in [0...DATA_SIZE]
      data[rows] = new Float32Array(DATA_SIZE)
      for cols in [0...DATA_SIZE]
          data[rows][cols] = 0

    # The rest is the same...

The key line in there is the declaration of data[rows].

With the line data[rows] = new Array(DATA_SIZE) (essentially equivalent to the original), I get the benchmark numbers:

And with the line data[rows] = new Float32Array(DATA_SIZE), I get

So that one small change cuts the running time down by about 1/3, i.e. a 50% speed increase!

It's still not Java, but it's a pretty substantial improvement. Expect future versions of Node/V8 to narrow the performance gap further.

Caveat: It's got to be mentioned that normal JS numbers are double-precision, i.e. 64-bit floats. Using Float32Array will thus reduce precision, making this a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison—I don't know how much of the performance improvement is from using 32-bit math, and how much is from faster array access. A Float64Array is part of the V8 spec, but isn't yet implemented in the v8-typed-array library.)

If you're looking for performance in algorithms like this, both coffee/js and Java are the wrong languages to be using. Javascript is especially poor for problems like this because it does not have an array type - arrays are just hash maps where keys must be integers, which obviously will not be as quick as a real array. What you want is to write this algorithm in C and call that from node (see http://nodejs.org/docs/v0.4.10/api/addons.html). Unless you're really good at hand-optimizing machine code, good C will easily outstrip any other language.

Forget about Coffeescript for a minute, because that's not the root of the problem. That code just gets written to regular old javascript anyway when node runs it.

Just like any other javascript environment, node is single-threaded. The V8 engine is bloody fast, but for certain types of applications you might not be able to exceed the speed of the jvm.

I would first suggest trying to right out your diamond algorithm directly in js before moving to CS. See what kinds of speed optimizations you can make.

Actually, I'm kind of interested in this problem now too and am going to take a look at doing this.

Edit #2 This is my 2nd re-write with some optimizations such as pre-populating the data array. Its not significantly faster, but the code is a bit cleaner.

var makegrid = function(size){
    size++; //increment by 1

    var grid = [];
        grid.length = size,
        gsize = size-1; //frequently used value in later calculations.

    //setup grid array
    var len = size;
    while(len--){
        grid[len] = (new Array(size+1).join(0).split('')); //creates an array of length "size" where each index === 0
    }

    //populate four corners of the grid
    grid[0][0] = grid[gsize][0] = grid[0][gsize] = grid[gsize][gsize] = corner_vals;

    var side_length = gsize;

    while(side_length >= 2){
        var half_side = Math.floor(side_length / 2);

        //generate new square values
        for(var x=0; x<gsize; x += side_length){
            for(var y=0; y<gsize; y += side_length){

                //calculate average of existing corners            
                var avg = ((grid[x][y] + grid[x+side_length][y] + grid[x][y+side_length] + grid[x+side_length][y+side_length]) / 4) + (Math.random() * (2*height_range - height_range));

                //calculate random value for avg for center point
                grid[x+half_side][y+half_side] = Math.floor(avg);

            }
        }

        //generate diamond values
        for(var x=0; x<gsize; x+= half_side){
            for(var y=(x+half_side)%side_length; y<gsize; y+= side_length){

                var avg = Math.floor( ((grid[(x-half_side+gsize)%gsize][y] + grid[(x+half_side)%gsize][y] + grid[x][(y+half_side)%gsize] + grid[x][(y-half_side+gsize)%gsize]) / 4) + (Math.random() * (2*height_range - height_range)) );

                grid[x][y] = avg;

                if( x === 0) grid[gsize][y] = avg;
                if( y === 0) grid[x][gsize] = avg;
            }
        }

        side_length /= 2;
        height_range /= 2;
    }

    return grid;
}

makegrid(256)
makegrid(512)
makegrid(1024)
makegrid(2048)
makegrid(4096)

I have always assumed that when people described javascript runtime's as 'fast' they mean relative to other interpreted, dynamic languages. A comparison to ruby, python or smalltalk would be interesting. Comparing JavaScript to Java is not a fair comparison.

To answer your question, I believe that the results you are seeing are indicative of what you can expect comparing these two vastly different languages.