First of all, I know how extend
and include
work, and what they're usually used for etc. Whether it is a good idea or not is not part of my question.
My question is: how expensive is extend
? It's a common Javascript technique to extend instances and singleton objects. One could do something similar in Ruby, but would it be slow if used on a lot of objects?
In simple words, the difference between include and extend is that 'include' is for adding methods only to an instance of a class and 'extend' is for adding methods to the class but not to its instance. Example : # Ruby program of Include and Extend. # Creating a module contains a method.
The only difference is where in the ancestor chain the module is added. With include , the module is added after the class in the ancestor chain. With prepend, the module is added before the class in the ancestor chain.
In this section we'll discuss the included method. It is a callback that Ruby invokes whenever the module is included into another module/class. An example should make this clear: Example Code: module Foo def self.included(klass) puts "Foo has been included in class #{klass}" end end class Bar include Foo end.
included is called when you include module into a class, it is used for defining relations, scopes, validations, ... It gets called before you even have created object from that class.
Let's see what happens in Ruby 1.9.3-p0 if you call extend
on an object:
/* eval.c, line 879 */
void
rb_extend_object(VALUE obj, VALUE module)
{
rb_include_module(rb_singleton_class(obj), module);
}
So the module is mixed into the singleton class of the object. How costly is it to fetch the singleton class? Well, rb_singleton_class_of(obj)
in turn calls singleton_class_of(obj)
(class.c:1253). That one returns immediately if the singleton class was accessed before (and thus already exists). If not, a new class is created by make_singleton_class
which is not too expensive as well:
/* class.c, line 341 */
static inline VALUE
make_singleton_class(VALUE obj)
{
VALUE orig_class = RBASIC(obj)->klass;
VALUE klass = rb_class_boot(orig_class);
FL_SET(klass, FL_SINGLETON);
RBASIC(obj)->klass = klass;
rb_singleton_class_attached(klass, obj);
METACLASS_OF(klass) = METACLASS_OF(rb_class_real(orig_class));
return klass;
}
This is all O(1)
.
Afterwards, rb_include_module
(class.c:660) is called, which is O(n)
regarding the number of modules already included by the singleton class because it needs to check whether the module is already there (there will usually not be many included modules in the singleton class, so this is okay).
Conclusion: extend
is not a very expensive operation so you can use it often if you want to. The only thing I could imagine is that the resolution of method calls to the instance after the extend
could be a bit more complex, as one additional layer of modules needs to be checked. Both is less of a problem if you know that the singleton class already exists. In that case, extend
introduces almost no additional complexity.
However, dynamically extending instances can lead to very unreadable code if applied too extensively, so take care.
This small benchmark demonstrates the situation regarding performance:
require 'benchmark'
module DynamicMixin
def debug_me
puts "Hi, I'm %s" % name
end
end
Person = Struct.new(:name)
def create_people
100000.times.map { |i| Person.new(i.to_s) }
end
if $0 == __FILE__
debug_me = Proc.new { puts "Hi, I'm %s" % name }
Benchmark.bm do |x|
people = create_people
case ARGV[0]
when "extend1"
x.report "Object#extend" do
people.each { |person|
person.extend DynamicMixin
}
end
when "extend2"
# force creation of singleton class
people.map { |x| class << x; self; end }
x.report "Object#extend (existing singleton class)" do
people.each { |person|
person.extend DynamicMixin
}
end
when "include"
x.report "Module#include" do
people.each { |person|
class << person
include DynamicMixin
end
}
end
when "method"
x.report "Object#define_singleton_method" do
people.each { |person|
person.define_singleton_method("debug_me", &debug_me)
}
end
when "object1"
x.report "create object without extending" do
100000.times { |i|
person = Person.new(i.to_s)
}
end
when "object2"
x.report "create object with extending" do
100000.times { |i|
person = Person.new(i.to_s)
person.extend DynamicMixin
}
end
when "object3"
class TmpPerson < Person
include DynamicMixin
end
x.report "create object with temp class" do
100000.times { |i|
person = TmpPerson.new(i.to_s)
}
end
end
end
end
Results
user system total real
Object#extend 0.200000 0.060000 0.260000 ( 0.272779)
Object#extend (existing singleton class) 0.130000 0.000000 0.130000 ( 0.130711)
Module#include 0.280000 0.040000 0.320000 ( 0.332719)
Object#define_singleton_method 0.350000 0.040000 0.390000 ( 0.396296)
create object without extending 0.060000 0.010000 0.070000 ( 0.071103)
create object with extending 0.340000 0.000000 0.340000 ( 0.341622)
create object with temp class 0.080000 0.000000 0.080000 ( 0.076526)
Interestingly, Module#include
on the metaclass is actually slower than Object#extend
, although it does the exact same thing (because we need special Ruby syntax to access the metaclass). Object#extend
is more than twice as fast if the singleton class already exists. Object#define_singleton_method
is slowest (although it can be cleaner if you only want to dynamically add a single method only).
The most interesting results are the bottom two, however: Creating an object and then extending it is nearly 4 times as slow as only creating the object! So if you create a lot of throwaway objects in a loop, for example, it might have a significant impact on performance if you extend every single one of those. It is much more efficient here to create a temporary class that includes the mixin explicitely.
One thing to be aware of is that extend (and include) both reset the cache that ruby uses to lookup method implementations from names.
I recall this being mentioned as a potential performance issue at a session at railsconf a few years back. I don't know what the actual performance impact is though, and strikes me as something hard to benchmark in isolation. Adapting Niklas' benchmark, I did
require 'benchmark'
module DynamicMixin
def debug_me
puts "Hi, I'm %s" % name
end
end
Person = Struct.new(:name)
def create_people
100000.times.map { |i| Person.new(i.to_s) }
end
if $0 == __FILE__
debug_me = Proc.new { puts "Hi, I'm %s" % name }
Benchmark.bm do |x|
people = create_people
x.report "separate loop" do
people.each { |person|
person.extend DynamicMixin
}
people.each {|p| p.name}
end
people = create_people
x.report "interleaved calls to name" do
people.each { |person|
person.extend DynamicMixin
person.name
}
end
end
end
In the first case I do all the extending and then loop through all the people and call the .name
method. Cache invalidation obviously still happens, but once I've called name on the first person the cache will be warmed and never gets cold
In the second case I'm alternating calls to extend and calls to .name
, so the cache is always cold when I call .name
The numbers I get are
user system total real
separate loop 0.210000 0.030000 0.240000 ( 0.230208)
interleaved calls to name 0.260000 0.030000 0.290000 ( 0.290910)
So the interleaved calls are slower. I can't be sure that the only reason is the method lookup cache being cleared though.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With