Why are tuples not value types on .NET?


Microsoft made all tuple types reference types in the interests of simplicity.
Objectively, this was a mistake. Tuples with more than 4 fields are very unusual and should be replaced with a more typeful alternative anyway (such as a record type in F#) so only small tuples are of practical interest. My own benchmarks showed that unboxed tuples up to 512 bytes could still be faster than boxed tuples.
Although memory efficiency is one concern, the dominant issue is the overhead of the garbage collector. Allocation and collection are particularly expensive on .NET because its garbage collector has not been very heavily optimized (e.g. compared to the JVM). Moreover, the default .NET GC (workstation) has not yet been parallelized. Consequently, parallel programs that use tuples grind to a halt as all cores contend for the shared garbage collector, destroying scalability. This is not only the dominant concern but, AFAIK, was completely neglected by Microsoft when they examined this problem.
Another concern is virtual dispatch. Reference types support subtypes and, therefore, their members are typically invoked via virtual dispatch. In contrast, value types cannot support subtypes so member invocation is entirely unambiguous and can always be performed as a direct function call. Virtual dispatch is hugely expensive on modern hardware because the CPU cannot predict where the program counter will end up. The JVM goes to great lengths to optimize virtual dispatch but .NET does not. However, .NET does provide an escape from virtual dispatch in the form of value types. So representing tuples as value types could, again, have dramatically improved performance here. For example, callingGetHashCode on a 2-tuple a million times takes 0.17s but calling it on an equivalent struct takes only 0.008s, i.e. the value type is 20× faster than the reference type.
A real situation where these performance problems with tuples commonly arises is in the use of tuples as keys in dictionaries. For example, see the Stack Overflow question F# runs my algorithm slower than Python! where the author's F# program turned out to be slower than his Python precisely because he was using boxed tuples. Manually unboxing using a hand-written struct type makes his F# program several times faster, and faster than Python. These issues would never had arisen if tuples were represented by value types and not reference types to begin with...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Benchmarking in the web age

The TechEmpower website contains some fascinating benchmarks of servers. The results on this benchmark of multiple requests to servers provide some insight into the performance characteristics of .NET on a modern problem. Specifically, the C# on ASP.NET Core solutions range from 2.5-80× slower than fastest solution which is written in Rust. In fact, C# is beaten by the following programming languages in order: Rust Java Kotlin Go C Perl Clojure PHP C++ Furthermore, .NET Core is Microsoft's new improved and faster version of .NET aimed specifically at these kinds of tasks. So why is it beaten by all those languages? I suspect that a large part of this is the change in workload from the kind of number crunching .NET was designed for to a modern string-heavy workload and I suspect .NET's GC isn't as optimised for this as the JVM is. As we have found, .NET has really poor support for JSON compared to other languages and frameworks, with support fragmented across many non-stand...
Read more

Does reference counting really use less memory than tracing garbage collection? Mathematica vs Swift vs OCaml vs F# on .NET and Mono

Image
Our previous post caused some controversy by questioning the validity of some commonly-held beliefs. Specifically, the beliefs that reference counting (RC) always requires less memory than tracing garbage collection (GC) and that tracing GCs require 3-4x more memory in order to perform adequately. We presented a benchmark written in Swift and OCaml and noted that the RC'd Swift implementation ran over 5x slower and required over 3x more memory than the tracing GC'd OCaml implementation. This observation disproves these beliefs in their strong form and even brings into question whether there is even any validity in the weak forms of those beliefs. After all, we have never seen any empirical evidence to support these beliefs in any form. We received a lot of criticism for that post. The vast majority of the criticism was not constructive but two valid points did arise. Firstly, although our result was anomalous it would be more compelling to see the benchmark repeated across a w...
Read more

Does reference counting really use less memory than tracing garbage collection? Swift vs OCaml

Image
The way software developers cling to folklore and avoid proper experimental testing of hypotheses really bothers me. I think perhaps the worst branch of computer science still riddled with myths and legends is memory management. Despite over half a century of research on garbage collection showing that reference counting is inferior to tracing garbage collections algorithms (even when almost all GC research restricts consideration to Java when much better algorithms have been known for years) there are still many people who claim otherwise. C++ developers obviously still believe that reference counted smart pointers are superior to tracing garbage collection but now other people are doing it too. People who should know better. This situation recently reared its ugly head again when Apple released a promising new programming language called Swift that shuns tracing garbage collection in favor of reference counting. Now, there are logical reasons for Apple to have chosen reference count...
Read more