Expand ShortByteStrings API? about bytestring HOT 9 CLOSED

I created: https://github.com/hasufell/shortbytestring

It's also on hackage: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/shortbytestring

Reviews welcome. It is currently used in the abstract-filepath library, which is WIP and will heavily rely on it.

from bytestring.

I/O functions that may block (and therefore are marked safe) typically require pinned memory afaik, so I don't think we can avoid the allocation & memcpy anyway...

from bytestring.

Even at a time when the STUArray is frozen and has left the ST monad?

from bytestring.

@hce I think I might but it's not going to be easy, since System.IO.hPutBuf uses Ptr so you'd have to go deeper into the internals. Also, are you sure this is your performance problem? Writing a very short string into a handle is not going to be quick anyway since we have to take the Handle lock and do various other checks. If you're writing a lot of ShortByteString then you're much better off using the bytestring Builder which builds up big chunks and can flush them in one go (often bypassing the Handle buffer entirely).

from bytestring.

What I need the mutable array for is the deflate algorithm that I'm implementing. I'm open to alternative suggestions for how to best implement this. :)

It is not the only bottleneck, but the conversion does appear to take a non-negligible amount of time.

Do you think "converting" the individual Word8 values to a Builder would be more efficient than the memcpy of ShortByteString into ByteString?

from bytestring.

Do you think "converting" the individual Word8 values to a Builder would be more efficient than the memcpy of ShortByteString into ByteString

No, a memcpy is as fast as it gets. Using a builder is also copying, just slower.

from bytestring.

So, I have to say I'm back in a state of confusion. I'm not really clear what you're doing, or what you think would make things faster. We should have some clear statement of a problem and a plausible looking solution before anyone implements anything here.

from bytestring.

I propose doing the opposite: adding processing functions to ShortByteString, usually i have a workflow like: IO ByteString ---> Some Parser ---> DataStructure Contain ShortByteString, but if i want to further process these DataStructures, i got stuck since there's not so many combinators out there.

One problem is the combinators explosion, a possible way i can think of is to use type ShortByteString = Vector Word8, and reuse all the good things in Data.Vector.Unboxed, or maybe it's better to make a new package?

from bytestring.

I'm afraid that expanding ShortByteString API will inevitable raise a question about Char8 interface and lazy ShortByteString (at this point it won't be short anymore, but rather a ByteString backed by ByteArray, cf. #193). And we are quite bad at providing a consistent API even for four existing ByteString flavours (#289).

from bytestring.