First class stream fusion

February 28, 2016

GravatarBy Michael Snoyman

This is a blog post about a little thought experiment I've been playing with recently. The idea has been bouncing around in my head for a few years now, but some recent discussions with coworkers at FP Complete (particularly Chris Done and Francesco Mazzoli) made me spend a few hours on this, and I thought it would be worth sharing for some feedback.


The basic premise is this: we typically follow a philosophy in many common libraries that there's the nice abstraction layer that we want to present to users, and then the low-level approach under the surface that the user should never know about but makes everything fast. This is generally a concept of fusion and rewrite rules, and appears in things like build/foldr fusion in base, and stream fusion in vector (and more recently, in conduit).

Here are the ideas fueling this thought experiment:

  • Making our code only fast when GHC rewrite rules fire correctly leads to unreliable speedups. (Check the benchmarks on the example repo, which show conduit slowing down despite its implementation of stream fusion.) This is a very difficult situation to solve as a library user.

  • By hiding the real implementation away under a nice abstraction, library users do not necessarily have any understanding of what kinds of code will be fast and what will be slow. This is not quite as frustrating as the previous point, but still quite surprising.

  • On the flip side, the high level abstractions generally allow for more flexible code to be written than the lower level approach may allow.

  • Is there a way to make the low-level, fast approach the primary interface that the user sees, lose a minimal amount of functionality, and perhaps regain that functionality by making the more featureful abstraction available via explicit opt-in?

  • Perhaps we can get better category laws out of a different formulation of a streaming library (like pipes has), but still hold onto extra functionality (like conduit has).

If that was too abstract, don't worry about it. Keep reading, and you'll see where these ideas led me.

Standard stream fusion

Duncan Coutts, Roman Leshchinskiy and Don Stewart introduced a concept called stream fusion, which powers the awesome speed and minimal memory usage of the vector package for many common cases. The idea is:

  • We have a stream abstraction which can be aggressively optimized by GHC (details unimportant for understanding this post)

  • Represent vector operations as stream operations, wrapped by functions that convert to and from vectors. For example:

    mapVector f = streamToVector . mapStream f . vectorToStream
  • Use GHC rewrite rules to remove conversions back and forth between vectors and streams, e.g.:

    mapVector f . mapVector g
        = streamToVector . mapStream f
                         . vectorToStream . streamToVector
                         . mapStream g . vectorToStream
          -- Apply rule: vectorToStream . streamToVector = id
        = streamToVector . mapStream f
                         . id
                         . mapStream g . vectorToStream
        = streamToVector . mapStream f . mapStream g . vectorToStream

In practice, this can allow long chains of vector operation applications to ultimately rewrite away any trace of the vector, run in constant space, and get compiled down to a tight inner loop to boot. Yay!

User facing stream fusion

However, there's an underlying, unstated assumption that goes along with all of this: users would rather look at vector functions instead of stream functions, and therefore we should rely on GHC rewrite rules to hide the "complicated" stream stuff. (Note: I'm simplifying a lot here, there are other reasons to like having a Vector-oriented interface for users. We'll touch on that later.)

But let's look at this concretely with some type signatures. First, our main Stream datatype:

data Stream o m r

This type produces a stream of o values, runs in the m monad, and ultimately ends with a value of r. The r type parameter is in practice most useful so that we can get Functor/Applicative/Monad instance of our type, but for our purposes today we can assume it will always be (). And m allows us more flexibility for optimizing things like mapM, but if you treat it as Identity we have no effects going on. Said another way: Stream o Identity () is more or less identical to [o] or Vector o.

How about common functions? Well, since this is just a thought experiment, I only implemented a few. Consider:

enumFromToS :: (Ord o, Monad m, Num o) => o -> o -> Stream o m ()

mapS :: Functor m => (i -> o) -> Stream i m r -> Stream o m r

foldlS :: (Monad m) => (r -> i -> r) -> r -> Stream i m () -> m r

-- Yes, we can build up more specific functions
sumS :: (Num i, Monad m) => Stream i m () -> m i
sumS = foldlS (+) 0

If you ignore the m and r type parameters, these functions look identical to their list and vector counterparts. As opposed to lists and vectors, though, we know for a fact that these functions will never end up creating a list of values in memory, since no such capability exists for a Stream. Take, for example, the typical bad implementation of average for lists:

average :: [Double] -> Double
average list = sum list / length list

This is problematic, since it traverses the entire list twice, being both CPU inefficient and possibly forcing a large list to remain resident in memory. This mistake cannot be made naively with the stream implementation. Instead, you're forced to write it the efficient way, avoiding confusion down the road:

averageS :: (Fractional i, Monad m) => Stream i m () -> m i
averageS =
    fmap (\(total, count) -> total / count) . foldlS go (0, 0)
    go (!total, !count) i = (total + i, count + 1)

Of course, this is also a downside: when you're trying to do something simple without worrying about efficiency, being forced to deal with the lower-level abstraction can be an annoyance. That's one major question of this thought experiment: which world is the better one to live in?

Capturing complex patterns

Coroutine-based streaming libraries like conduit and pipes provide for the ability for some really complex flows of control without breaking composability. For example, in conduit, you can use ZipSink to feed two consumers of data in parallel and then use standard Applicative notation to combine the result values. You can also monadically compose multiple transformers of a data stream together and pass unconsumed data from one to the other (leftovers). Without some significant additions to our stream layer (which would likely harm performance), we can't do any of that.

Interestingly, all of the "cool" stuff you want to do in conduit happens before you connect a component to its upstream or downstream neighbors. For example, let's say I have two functions for parsing different parts of a data file:

parseHeader :: Monad m => Sink ByteString m Header

parseBody :: Monad m => Sink ByteString m Body

I can compose these together monadically (or applicatively in this case) like so:

parseHeaderAndBody :: Monad m => Sink ByteString m (Header, Body)
parseHeaderAndBody = (,) <$> parseHeader <*> parseBody

So what if we had a conversion function that takes a coroutine-based abstraction and converted it into our streaming abstraction? We don't expect to have the same level of performance as a hand-written streaming abstraction, but can we at least get composability? Thankfully, the answer is yes. The Gotenks module implements a conduit-like library*. This library follows all of the common patterns: await, yield, and leftover functions, monadic composition, and could be extended with other conduit features like ZipSink.

* Unlike conduit, Gotenks does not provide finalizers. They complicate things for a small example like this, and after a lot of thought over the years, I think it's the one extra feature in conduit vs pipes that we could most do without.

One thing notably missing, though, is any kind of operator like =$=, $$, or (from pipes) >-> or <-<, which allows us to connect an upstream and downstream component together. The reason is that, instead, we have three functions to convert to our streaming abstraction:

toSource :: Applicative m => Gotenks () o m r -> Stream o m r
toTransform :: Applicative m => Gotenks i o m r -> Stream i m () -> Stream o m r
toSink :: Monad m => Gotenks i Void m r -> Stream i m () -> m r

And then, we're able to use standard function applications - just like in the streaming layer - to stick our components together. For example, take this snippet from the benchmark:

[ bench' "vegito" $ \x ->
        $ sumS
        $ mapS (+ 1)
        $ mapS (* 2)
        $ enumFromToS 1 x
, bench' "gotenks" $ \x ->
        $ toSink sumG
        $ toTransform (mapG (+ 1))
        $ toTransform (mapG (* 2))
        $ toSource (enumFromToG 1 x)

The obvious benefit here is that our coroutine-based layer is fully compatible with our stream-based layer, making for easy interop/composition. But in addition:

  • We now get to trivially prove the category laws, since we're just using function composition! This is more important than it may at first seem. To my knowledge, this is the first time we've ever gotten a streaming implementation that has baked-in leftover support and full category laws, including left identity. The reason this works is because we now have an explicit conversion step where we "throw away" leftovers, which doesn't exist in conduit.
  • In case you were worried: the Gotenks layer is implemented as a functor combined with the codensity transform, guaranteeing trivially that we're also obeying the monad laws. So without breaking a sweat, we've now got a great law-abiding system. (Also, we get efficient right-association of monadic bind.)
  • While the coroutine-based code will by nature be slower, the rest of our pipeline can remain fast by sticking to streams.

What's next?

Honestly, I have no idea what's next. I wanted to see if I could write a streaming implementation that was guaranteed fast, provided interop with conduit-style workflows, and would be relatively easy to teach. With the exception of the two extra type parameters possibly causing confusion, I think everything else is true. As far as where this goes next, I'm very much open to feedback.

UPDATE Benchmark results

Don Stewart asked me on Twitter to share the benchmark results for this repo. They're not particularly enlightening, which is why I didn't include them initially. Nonetheless, putting them here makes it clear what I'm getting at: vegito, vector, and conduit (when stream fusion kicks in) are all the same speed. In fact, the more interesting thing is to look at their compiled core, which is identical. The annoyance is that, while Data.Conduit.List and Data.Conduit.Combinators both fire their rewrite rules, the combinators provided by the Conduit module do not fire, leading to a significant (read: 200-fold) slowdown. This slowdown is exacerbated by the choice of benchmark, which is intended to demonstrate the specific power of the stream fusion optimizations.


comments powered by Disqus