perf: Improve `@babel/types` builders by liuxingbaoyu · Pull Request #15843 · babel/babel

liuxingbaoyu · 2023-08-07T10:08:56Z

Q	A
Fixed Issues?	`Fixes #1, Fixes #2`
Patch: Bug Fix?
Major: Breaking Change?
Minor: New Feature?
Tests Added + Pass?	Yes
Documentation PR Link
Any Dependency Changes?
License	MIT

Some discussion is needed.
Because it's a breaking change.
Ref: #13868

This PR makes fields and builderKeys only lookup once on initialization.

PS F:\babel\benchmark\babel-types\builders> node .\memberExpression.mjs
baseline memberExpression builder: 804_478 ops/sec ±0.52% (0.001ms)
current memberExpression builder: 7_391_582 ops/sec ±0.26% (0ms)
PS F:\babel\benchmark\babel-types\builders> node .\stringLiteral.mjs
baseline stringLiteral builder: 32_462_576 ops/sec ±0.42% (0ms)
current stringLiteral builder: 81_001_155 ops/sec ±0.6% (0ms)

babel-bot · 2023-08-07T10:11:10Z

Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/57981

nicolo-ribaudo

Awesome performance numbers! I am in favor of landing this for Babel 8.

I'm wondering if maybe we can get even better numbers by inlining the validateInternal calls directly in the builder functions, at least for "pupular" nodes (Identifier, BinaryExpression, UnaryExpression, LogicalExpresssion, VariableDeclarator, VariableDeclaration, ...)

nicolo-ribaudo · 2023-08-07T16:29:47Z

packages/babel-types/src/builders/validateNode.ts

+
+  for (const key of builderKeys) {
+    const field = fields[key];
+    if (field != null) validateInternal(field, node, key, node[key]);


Does the validation for required field still work with this field != null check?

It will work, I just followed here to check ahead.
https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/15843/files#diff-04a0d87b83569ab9a9d94ee801346cf5443ecf057bf35f4836d4a259e882c8fcR39
But thanks to you, I found another problem, validateChild was accidentally skipped. :)

liuxingbaoyu · 2023-08-08T09:26:47Z

Yes, performance gets better when we inline, but I'm not sure if that's the way to go since the size would increase a lot.
Maybe we can dynamically generate fast versions of them when new Function()/eval is available?
But I'm not sure if doing so under ESM would be difficult.

current

PS F:\babel\benchmark\babel-types\builders> node .\memberExpression.mjs
baseline memberExpression builder: 788_321 ops/sec ±0.65% (0.001ms)
current memberExpression builder: 7_414_300 ops/sec ±0.47% (0ms)

PS F:\babel\benchmark\babel-types\builders> node .\memberExpression.mjs
baseline memberExpression builder: 807_823 ops/sec ±0.46% (0.001ms)
current memberExpression builder: 12_744_969 ops/sec ±0.31% (0ms)

PS F:\babel\benchmark\babel-types\builders> node .\memberExpression.mjs
baseline memberExpression builder: 813_116 ops/sec ±0.43% (0.001ms)
current memberExpression builder: 10_822_404 ops/sec ±0.35% (0ms)

nicolo-ribaudo · 2024-09-04T13:51:30Z

Lets do this without the suggestion I had in #15843 (review) :)

liuxingbaoyu · 2024-09-05T12:23:10Z

Lets do this without the suggestion I had in #15843 (review) :)

We seem to have done that in a subsequent commit. :)

liuxingbaoyu · 2024-09-05T21:15:49Z

Since BABEL_8_BREAKING is dynamic, this PR is a bit harder to merge.
I will open a PR to complete #13868, which will allow us to merge this PR in the Babel 8 patch release.

liuxingbaoyu · 2024-09-17T18:29:38Z

I'll try to land it in Babel 7, since #13868 is no longer blocking.
At the same time I realize that this will be annoying as long as we use process.env.BABEL_8_BREAKING or even process.env.BABEL_9_BREAKING.
Hopefully we can fix it once and for all.

nicolo-ribaudo · 2024-09-18T14:24:41Z

packages/babel-types/src/builders/generated/index.ts

+  };
+  validate(_data[1][0], node, "operator", operator);
+  validate(_data[1][1], node, "left", left, true);
+  validate(_data[1][2], node, "right", right, true);


Can we hard-code numbers here, instead of using _data[1][2]?

The data in the array is like this.

export type FieldOptions = { default?: string | number | boolean | []; optional?: boolean; deprecated?: boolean; validate?: Validator; };

Ah ok. And the reason we don't do validate(NODE_FIELDS[node.type].operator, node, "operator", operator) is for code size?

Or even just validate(node.type, node, "operator", operator), and then validate internally can get NODE_FIELDS[node.type]["operator"].

This avoids a lookup in NODE_FIELDS.
Also array access may be faster than .["operator"].

It seems that the performance data has little impact, I will open a new PR to try.

liuxingbaoyu · 2024-09-18T14:44:11Z

I think the CI error is a build error in Babel 8 where we accidentally bundled @babel/types everywhere. 🤦‍♂️
I will investigate.

liuxingbaoyu · 2024-09-18T18:08:32Z

packages/babel-types/scripts/ast-order-data.js

+  for (const [type, fields] of Object.entries(fieldsBabel7).concat(
+    Object.entries(fieldsBabel8)
+  )) {


The formatting here I'm not sure if it can be improved.
cc @fisker
If you're interested!

liuxingbaoyu · 2024-09-23T17:01:21Z

Superseded by #16842.

liuxingbaoyu added the i: discussion label Aug 7, 2023

liuxingbaoyu added the pkg: types label Aug 7, 2023

liuxingbaoyu force-pushed the improve-builder branch 3 times, most recently from 3c03dea to e112104 Compare August 7, 2023 11:30

nicolo-ribaudo reviewed Aug 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

liuxingbaoyu added PR: Performance (next major) 🏃‍♀️ A type of pull request used for our changelog categories for next major release and removed i: discussion labels Aug 22, 2023

liuxingbaoyu mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2023

chore: Allow Babel 8 types #15880

Closed

liuxingbaoyu added this to the v8.0.0-beta milestone Sep 2, 2024

liuxingbaoyu force-pushed the improve-builder branch from 7f71f8c to 19c0ba7 Compare September 5, 2024 20:43

liuxingbaoyu added 3 commits September 18, 2024 04:25

perf

afd4433

fix

1f6de56

babel7

2d2dd23

liuxingbaoyu force-pushed the improve-builder branch from 19c0ba7 to 2d2dd23 Compare September 17, 2024 21:38

fix

1bf205e

liuxingbaoyu modified the milestone: v8.0.0-beta Sep 17, 2024

liuxingbaoyu added PR: Performance 🏃‍♀️ A type of pull request used for our changelog categories and removed PR: Performance (next major) 🏃‍♀️ A type of pull request used for our changelog categories for next major release labels Sep 17, 2024

liuxingbaoyu marked this pull request as ready for review September 17, 2024 21:56

liuxingbaoyu force-pushed the improve-builder branch from 30d99c6 to 7add9e7 Compare September 18, 2024 01:30

fix

47819b4

liuxingbaoyu force-pushed the improve-builder branch from 7add9e7 to 47819b4 Compare September 18, 2024 14:07

nicolo-ribaudo reviewed Sep 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix

78d0126

liuxingbaoyu mentioned this pull request Sep 18, 2024

perf: Improve @babel/types builders #16842

Merged

liuxingbaoyu commented Sep 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

liuxingbaoyu closed this Sep 23, 2024

fisker mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2024

Ugly line break in for..of prettier/prettier#16732

Open

github-actions bot added the outdated A closed issue/PR that is archived due to age. Recommended to make a new issue label Dec 24, 2024

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 24, 2024

Uh oh!

Conversation

liuxingbaoyu commented Aug 7, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

babel-bot commented Aug 7, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nicolo-ribaudo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liuxingbaoyu commented Aug 8, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nicolo-ribaudo commented Sep 4, 2024

Uh oh!

liuxingbaoyu commented Sep 5, 2024

Uh oh!

liuxingbaoyu commented Sep 5, 2024

Uh oh!

liuxingbaoyu commented Sep 17, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liuxingbaoyu commented Sep 18, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liuxingbaoyu commented Sep 23, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

liuxingbaoyu commented Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

Loading

babel-bot commented Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

Loading

liuxingbaoyu commented Aug 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

liuxingbaoyu commented Sep 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading