Bryan O'Sullivan  committed 5274f5a

Add another blog posting.

  • Participants
  • Parent commits 71b08a8
  • Branches default

Comments (0)

Files changed (1)

File doc/

+In my
+[first of this pair of articles](,
+I laid out some of the qualities I've been looking for in a parsing
+Before I dive back into detail, I want to show off some numbers.  The
+new Attoparsec code is _fast_.
+What did I benchmark?  I captured some real HTTP GET requests from a
+live public web server, averaging 431 bytes per request.  I chucked
+them into a file, and measured the time needed to parse the entire
+contents of the file with the following libraries:
+* Ryan Dahl's [http-parser]( library,
+  which is 1,672 lines of hand-rolled C craziness.  Its heritage seems
+  to be closely based on the Ragel-generated parser used by Mongrel.
+  This library is a fair approximation to about as fast as you can
+  get, since it's been tuned for just one purpose.  I wrote a small,
+  but reasonably realistic,
+  [driver program](
+  to wire it up to file-based data, adding another 210 lines of code.
+* An Attoparsec-based
+  [HTTP request parser](,
+  54 lines long, with about 30 lines of
+  [driver program](
+  (Attoparsec itself is about 900 lines of code.)
+* Several
+  [Parsec-3-based parsers](,
+  which are almost identical in length to the Attoparsec-based
+  version.
+The Parsec 3 parsers come in three varieties:
+* The fastest uses a patch that Antoine Latter wrote to switch Parsec
+  3's internal machinery over to using continuation passing style
+  (CPS).  This parser uses `ByteString` for input, and reads the
+  entire 18.8MB file in one chunk.
+* Next is the same parser, using lazy `ByteString` I/O to read the
+  file in 64KB chunks.  This costs about 50% in performance, but is
+  almost mandatory to maintain a sensible footprint on large inputs.
+* In last place is the official version of Parsec 3, reading the input
+  in one chunk.  (Reading lazily still costs an additional 50%, but I
+  didn't want to further clutter the chart with more big numbers.)
+What's interesting to me is that the tiny Attoparsec-based parser,
+which is more or less a transliteration of the relevant parts of
+[RFC 2616](, is so
+I went back and remeasured performance of the Attoparsec and C parsers
+on a larger data set (295,568 URLs), and got these numbers:
+* Attoparsec: 2.889 seconds, or 102,308 requests/second
+* C: 1.614 seconds, or 183,128 requests/second
+That clocks the Attoparsec-based parser at about 56% the speed of the
+C parser.  Not bad, given that it's about 3.2% the number of lines of
+Of course there are tradeoffs involved here.
+* Parsec 3 emits much more friendly error messages, and can handle
+  many different input types.  Attoparsec, being aimed at
+  plumbing-oriented network protocols, considers friendly error
+  messages to not be worth the effort, and is specialised to the
+  arrays of bytes you get straight off the network.
+* Parsec 3 requires all of its input to be available when the parser
+  is run (either in one large chunk or via lazy I/O).  If Attoparsec
+  has insufficient data to return a complete result, it hands back a
+  continuation that you provide extra data to.  This eliminates the
+  need for lazy I/O and any additional buffering, and makes for a
+  beautiful, pure API that doesn't care what its input source is.
+The memory footprint of the Attoparsec-based parser is small: it will
+run in 568KB of heap on my 64-bit laptop.  The smallest heap size that
+the Parsec 3 parser can survive in isn't all that much larger: with
+lazily read input, it will run in a 750KB heap.
+Overall, this is yet another instance where a little careful attention
+to performance yields very exciting results.  Personally, I'd be quite
+happy to trade a 97% reduction in code size for such a small
+performance hit, especially given the clarity, ease of use, and
+flexibility of the resulting code.  (The `http_parser` API is frankly
+not so much fun to use, even though I completely understand the
+motivation behind it.)