Ecosyste.ms: Awesome
An open API service indexing awesome lists of open source software.
https://github.com/atamakahere-git/bob
Testing which builder pattern is better in rust
https://github.com/atamakahere-git/bob
Last synced: about 6 hours ago
JSON representation
Testing which builder pattern is better in rust
- Host: GitHub
- URL: https://github.com/atamakahere-git/bob
- Owner: atamakahere-git
- Created: 2024-02-19T11:47:06.000Z (9 months ago)
- Default Branch: master
- Last Pushed: 2024-02-19T13:23:40.000Z (9 months ago)
- Last Synced: 2024-08-03T09:05:23.699Z (4 months ago)
- Language: Rust
- Homepage:
- Size: 16.6 KB
- Stars: 20
- Watchers: 1
- Forks: 0
- Open Issues: 0
-
Metadata Files:
- Readme: Readme.md
Awesome Lists containing this project
README
# Benchmarking Builder Pattern (in Rust)
The builder pattern is a creational design pattern used to construct complex objects
step by step. It separates the construction of an object from its representation,
allowing the same construction process to create different representations.
In Rust, the builder pattern is commonly used to create structs with many optional
fields or fields that can have different types.
It provides a fluent API for setting values of these fields and eventually constructing the desired object.
## Types of Builder Patterns
For all the example in this topic, consider this struct
```rust
struct Struct {
name: String,
}
```
### 1. StructBuilder with Owned Types (Mutable Reference)
This builder pattern uses owned types for the fields and propogates them using mutable reference.
It allows setting values using mutable references to the builder.
```rust
struct StructBuilder {
name: Option,
}
impl StructBuilder {
pub fn name(&mut self, name: &str) -> &mut Self {
self.name = Some(name.to_owned());
self
}
pub fn build(self) -> Struct {
Struct {
name: self.name.unwrap_or_default(),
}
}
}
```
### 2. StructBuilder with Borrowed Types (Mutable Reference)
This builder pattern uses borrowed types for the fields and propogates them using mutable reference.
It allows setting values using borrowed references to the builder.
```rust
struct StructBuilder<'a> {
name: Option<&'a str>,
}
impl<'a> StructBuilder<'a> {
pub fn name(&mut self, name: &'a str) -> &mut Self {
self.name = Some(name);
self
}
pub fn build(self) -> Struct {
Struct {
name: self.name.unwrap_or_default().into(),
}
}
}
```
### 3. StructBuilder with Owned Types (Owned Type)
This builder pattern uses owned types for the fields and propogates them using owned type.
It allows setting values using owned references to the builder.
```rust
struct StructBuilder {
name: Option,
}
impl StructBuilder {
pub fn name(self, name: &str) -> Self {
Self {
name: Some(name.to_owned()),
..self
}
}
// build() same as 1
}
```
### 4. StructBuilder with Borrowed Types (Owned Type)
This builder pattern uses borrowed types for the fields and propogates them using owned type.
It allows setting values using owned references to the builder.
```rust
struct StructBuilder<'a> {
name: Option<&'a str>,
}
impl<'a> StructBuilder<'a> {
pub fn name(self, name: &'a str) -> Self {
Self {
name: Some(name),
..self
}
}
// build() same as 2
}
```
## Benchmarking
Benchmarks are important, specially when performance is critical to decide which builder pattern to use
My intuitive thought were that `2. StructBuilder with Borrowed Types (Mutable Reference)` would be most performant. But to my surprise it was not.
For benchmarking, All 4 types of builder is implemented on the following struct
```rust
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct Cat {
name: String,
username: String,
number: Option,
friends: Vec,
}
```
You can run the benchmarks yourself on this repo with `cargo bench`
### Types of Benchmarks performed
#### Random Data Builder
The Random Data Builder benchmarks the performance of constructing structs with randomly generated data.
This benchmark simulates real-world scenarios where the values of struct fields may vary each time an object is created.
#### Definite Data Builder
The Definite Data Builder benchmarks the performance of constructing structs with definite data, where the values of struct fields are predetermined.
This benchmark provides insights into the overhead introduced by the builder pattern when using fixed values for object creation.
### Results
Reading the titles in results:
Title format: `rand|def, mutref|owned, brw|owned`
1. `rand|def`: `rand` means random data was generated and supplied, `def` means definite (predetermined) data was provided
2. `mutref|owned`: `muref` means builder was propogated using mutable reference, `owned` means builder was propogated via owned type
3. `brw|owned`: `brw` means the builder struct contains borrowed types, `owned` means builder struct contains owned types
```shell
randmutrefowned time: [449.74 ns 453.26 ns 456.70 ns]
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
1 (1.00%) low severe
1 (1.00%) high severe
randmutrefbrw time: [541.01 ns 548.86 ns 557.56 ns]
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild
randownedowned time: [478.31 ns 482.57 ns 487.14 ns]
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
3 (3.00%) low mild
2 (2.00%) high mild
randownedbrw time: [506.05 ns 509.67 ns 513.56 ns]
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
2 (2.00%) low severe
3 (3.00%) low mild
3 (3.00%) high mild
defmutrefowned time: [164.30 ns 165.26 ns 166.20 ns]
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild
defmutrefbrw time: [93.536 ns 94.207 ns 94.943 ns]
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
1 (1.00%) low mild
3 (3.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
defownedowned time: [67.587 ns 67.979 ns 68.396 ns]
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
2 (2.00%) low mild
1 (1.00%) high mild
defownedbrw time: [91.504 ns 92.225 ns 93.050 ns]
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
3 (3.00%) high mild
3 (3.00%) high severe
```
## Inference
Based on the provided benchmark results, we can draw several conclusions regarding the performance of different builder patterns.
Here are the key inferences:
#### 1. Random Data vs. Definite Data:
Builders with definite (predetermined) data consistently showed lower execution times compared to those with random data. This suggests that constructing structs with predetermined data is generally more efficient than generating random data dynamically.
#### 2. Mutable Reference vs. Owned Type Propagation:
Builders propagated using owned types tended to have slightly better performance compared to those using mutable references, regardless of whether the builder struct contained borrowed or owned types. This implies that owned type propagation may offer slightly better performance and cleaner code.
#### 3. Borrowed Types Consideration:
The difference in performance between builder patterns containing borrowed types and those containing owned types was not significant. While builders with borrowed types may have slightly higher execution times, the impact on performance may be acceptable depending on the specific requirements of the application.
#### 4. Outliers:
The presence of outliers, especially high mild outliers, suggests some variability in the benchmark measurements. While most measurements are consistent, outliers may indicate occasional deviations from the norm.
## Conclusion
#### Using Owned type propogation and Owned type in Builder is suggested as per the benchmark