Now that we only use the list to create a replacer at init time,
we no longer need to spend extra effort sorting by length first.
The benchmark shows no measurable difference in performance.
This way, rather than using a double loop quadratic algorithm
to search for each name to replace in a string,
we can make use of the reasonably efficient generic replacer
which makes use of tries.
Copying some code from the strings package is not ideal,
but it beats having to re-implement such an algorithm ourselves.
Not only is the algorithm much faster, as we are no longer quadratic,
but the replacer also appends into a buffer to avoid repeated string
copies, which means we allocate fewer bytes per operation.
│ old │ new │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │
AbiOriginalNames-8 135708.0n ± 0% 391.1n ± 5% -99.71% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ B/s │ B/s vs base │
AbiOriginalNames-8 2.565Mi ± 0% 890.112Mi ± 4% +34597.03% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ B/op │ B/op vs base │
AbiOriginalNames-8 5464.0 ± 0% 848.0 ± 0% -84.48% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ allocs/op │ allocs/op vs base │
AbiOriginalNames-8 18.00 ± 0% 16.00 ± 0% -11.11% (p=0.001 n=7)
As Paul Scheduikat points out, the loop already does not start
if the length of name is less than minHashLength.
│ old │ new │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │
AbiOriginalNames-8 135.6µ ± 1% 135.5µ ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=7)
Use the term "original name" rather than "real name" for the code
as it is clearer that we mean the unobfuscated name.
Update the comments at the top of the file to be clearer with the
explanation of what kinds of inputs we can expect.
While here, use fmt.Appendf to simplify the generation code a bit.
This lets us only check names up to the remaining input string length.
│ old │ new │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │
AbiRealName-8 196.7µ ± 1% 172.3µ ± 1% -12.41% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ B/s │ B/s vs base │
AbiRealName-8 1.774Mi ± 1% 2.022Mi ± 0% +13.98% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ B/op │ B/op vs base │
AbiRealName-8 5.359Ki ± 0% 5.336Ki ± 0% -0.44% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ allocs/op │ allocs/op vs base │
AbiRealName-8 19.00 ± 0% 18.00 ± 0% -5.26% (p=0.001 n=7)
Iterating over a map is much more expensive than iterating over a slice,
given how it needs to work out which keys are present in each bucket
and then randomize the order in which to navigate the keys.
None of this work needs to happen when iterating over a slice.
A map would be nice if we were to actually do map lookups, but we don't.
│ old │ new │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │
AbiRealName-8 707.1µ ± 1% 196.7µ ± 1% -72.17% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ B/s │ B/s vs base │
AbiRealName-8 517.6Ki ± 2% 1816.4Ki ± 1% +250.94% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ B/op │ B/op vs base │
AbiRealName-8 5.362Ki ± 0% 5.359Ki ± 0% -0.05% (p=0.001 n=7)
│ old │ new │
│ allocs/op │ allocs/op vs base │
AbiRealName-8 19.00 ± 0% 19.00 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=7) ¹
Daniel Martí