Update on my DFDL schema …
I spent 40 hours adding a third layer of dfdl:choiceDispatchKey. That
has made the DFDL schema extremely complicated. Now my DFDL schema
requires no backtracking. Previously, before adding the third layer of
dfdl:choiceDispatchKey, it took 226 seconds to parse the input file.
Now, with the third layer of dfdl:choiceDispatchKey and no backtracking
it takes 214 seconds. So, after putting in 40 hours of work, introducing
a ton of complexity, eliminating all backtracking, I get a savings of 12
seconds.
*From:* Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 9, 2024 6:12 PM
*To:* users@daffodil.apache.org
*Subject:* [EXT] Re: Parsing 5 million lines of input is taking 4
minutes - too slow!
I was thinking about instrumentation output from Daffodil that would
make it clear how many attempts to parse each choice branch that end in
backtracking are done. A histogram listing each element declaration, and
how many times it is parsed
I was thinking about instrumentation output from Daffodil that would
make it clear how many attempts to parse each choice branch that end in
backtracking are done.
A histogram listing each element declaration, and how many times it is
parsed would basically tell you whether things were being parsed over
and over. When something is parsed many more times than its parent is
parsed, that's an indication it's being parsed excessively.
I want to comment on this refactoring of the schema:
What we really need ... is direct dispatch on these choices,
but it does require a little restructuring. Instead, you could replace
the above choice with something like this:
<element name="Foo_Records">
<complexType>
<sequence>
<element name="field1" ... />
<element name="field2" ... />
<element name="field3" ... />
<choice dfdl:choiceDispatchKey="{ ./field3 }">
<element ref="Foo_PrimaryRecords"
dfdl:choiceBranchKey="A" />
<element ref="Foo_SecondaryRecords"
dfdl:choiceBranchKey="B" />
<element ref="Foo_TertiaryRecords"
dfdl:choiceBranchKey="C" />
</choice>
</sequence>
</complexType>
</element>
I think the above is elegant in that it expresses
1. that field1, 2, 3 are first and are uniformly defined in all the
data (of these Foo records).
2. that only field3 is needed to determine which of Primary, Secondary,
and Tertiary records is in the data.
Those two things together are what enable an efficient non-backtracking
parser to be created for this. They are also statements found in most
data message format specifications buried somewhere in the prose. That
information needs to be captured in the DFDL schema somehow that allows
the implementation to take advantage of it.
If you don't restructure the schema like the above, how else would you
capture that information in the DFDL schema?
Leaving these things out and just expressing a choice of a bunch of
layouts,... in that case the DFDL schema is telling me much less about
the format. It's not declaring the uniformity which is intentionally
part of the format spec.
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 2:29 PM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org
<mailto:slawre...@apache.org>> wrote:
Roger,
I've taken a look at your schema, and it does look like excessive
backtracking is potentially part of the issue. Although many of your
outer choices use direct dispatch, some of the inner-choices do not.
I'll try to stay general in my examples so the discussions can stay
public, but if the solution isn't clear let me know and we can talk
privately.
Your schema has a lot of choices that look like this:
<choice>
<element ref="Foo_PrimaryRecords" />
<element ref="Foo_SecondaryRecords" />
<element ref="Foo_TertiaryRecords" />
...
</choice>
With each of those looking something like this:
<element name="Foo_PrimaryRecords">
<complexType>
<sequence>
<element name="field1" ... />
<element name="field2" ... />
<element name="field3" ...>
<simpleType>
<restriction base="validString">
<enumeration value="A" />
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</element>
</sequence>
<!-- fields specific to Foo_PrimaryRecord -->
</complexType>
</element>
<element name="Foo_SecondaryRecords">
<complexType>
<sequence>
<element name="field1" ... />
<element name="field2" ... />
<element name="field3" ...>
<simpleType>
<restriction base="validString">
<enumeration value="B" />
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</element>
</sequence>
<!-- fields specific to Foo_SecondaryRecord -->
</complexType>
</element>
And something similar for the TertiaryRecords.
Note that the first few fields are exactly the same, differing only
after field3, and based on the valid of field3. This means, for
example,
that if the record is a tertiary record, then Daffodil will need to
repeatedly parse the same first fields and backtrack before the
validString assertion finally succeeds. So in order to parse one
record,
we may parse the same fields multiple times, which is inefficient and
could slow things down.
What we really need to avoid this is direct dispatch on these choices,
but it does require a little restructuring. Instead, you could replace
the above choice with something like this:
<element name="Foo_Records">
<complexType>
<sequence>
<element name="field1" ... />
<element name="field2" ... />
<element name="field3" ... />
<choice dfdl:choiceDispatchKey="{ ./field3 }">
<element ref="Foo_PrimaryRecords"
dfdl:choiceBranchKey="A" />
<element ref="Foo_SecondaryRecords"
dfdl:choiceBranchKey="B" />
<element ref="Foo_TertiaryRecords"
dfdl:choiceBranchKey="C" />
</choice>
</sequence>
</complexType>
</element>
And then each of the Foo_*Records elements contain only fields specific
to that group of records (i.e. what they have now without the first
common fields). And note that those might contain even more choices.
For
example, maybe Foo_SecondaryRecords has a choice of
Foo_SecondaryOldRecords and Foo_SecondaryNewRecords.
You already do something similar for some of your outer choices--doing
it for all the choices should help to speed things up.
I'm sure there are still performance improvements we can make to
Daffodil to optimize text parsing, but these kinds of changes should
help quite in the mean time.
On 2024-01-04 01:54 PM, Mike Beckerle wrote:
> Roger said: So, that means it takes 130 seconds to parse the
> 5-million-line input file and build an internal infoset but only 96
> seconds to create the 4 GB XML file. That makes no sense.
>
> I agree with you that parsing 5M records and it taking 2 minutes ...
> something is clearly wrong and it is much too slow.
> 2 minutes to a modern CPU is like the Jurassic Age to a human. I.e.,
> it's an almost unimaginably long time.
>
> But parsing taking longer than writing out XML */can/* make sense
> depending on the format complexity. Writing out 4GB of XML is
just a
> bunch of text I/O. Per byte that's pretty fast.
>
> The speed of DFDL parsing is proportional to /the number of
decisions/
> the parser must make, which is linearly, but weakly, correlated
to the
> data size. The constant factors vary widely with the format.
>
> For an extreme example: there is a mil-std-2045 message header
that is
> 33 bits long. It mostly consists of hidden groups of presence
bits that
> are 0 indicating that some optional component is not present.
Each such
> bit requires a DFDL choice of two possibilities, evaluation of a
> choice-dispatch-key expression or a occursCount expression, and
most of
> those then create *nothing* in the infoset. So a bunch of
overhead to
> consume 1 bit of input and decide to add nothing to the infoset.
Repeat
> almost 30 times. You have now consumed less than 5 bytes of the
input.
> In terms of parse speed in bytes/second this is going to be super
slow
> because every byte requires a bunch of parser decision making.
Writing
> out the corresponding 956 bytes of XML text is going to be very
quick in
> comparison to this parsing.
>
> (FYI: This extreme example is on github here:
>
https://github.com/DFDLSchemas/mil-std-2045/blob/master/src/test/resources/com/owlcyberdefense/mil-std-2045/milstd2045.tdml
<https://github.com/DFDLSchemas/mil-std-2045/blob/master/src/test/resources/com/owlcyberdefense/mil-std-2045/milstd2045.tdml>
<https://github.com/DFDLSchemas/mil-std-2045/blob/master/src/test/resources/com/owlcyberdefense/mil-std-2045/milstd2045.tdml
<https://github.com/DFDLSchemas/mil-std-2045/blob/master/src/test/resources/com/owlcyberdefense/mil-std-2045/milstd2045.tdml>>
> The test is named test_2045_C_minimum_size_header. )
>
> I realize your data and schema likely don't have such extreme
behavior.
>
> We need to get your schema so we can figure out where the
performance
> problem is, whether there is a workaround, and what kind of Daffodil
> features would eliminate all this guesswork about what's slow
about it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:59 AM Roger L Costello
<coste...@mitre.org <mailto:coste...@mitre.org>
> <mailto:coste...@mitre.org <mailto:coste...@mitre.org>>> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:____
>
> __ __
>
> __Ø__One way to get a decent approximation for how much time
is used for
> the former [build an internal infoset] is to use the "null"
infoset
> outputter, e.g.____
>
> __Ø____ __
>
> __Ø__ daffodil parse -I null ...____
>
> __ __
>
> __Ø__This still parses data and builds the internal infoset
but turns
> infoset ____
>
> * serialization into a no-op.____
>
> __ __
>
> Thanks Steve. I did as you suggested and here’s the result:____
>
> __ __
>
> * 130 seconds____
>
> __ __
>
> That is super surprising. I would have expected it to take much,
> much less time.____
>
> __ __
>
> So, that means it takes 130 seconds to parse the 5-million-line
> input file and build an internal infoset but only 96 seconds to
> create the 4 GB XML file. That makes no sense.____
>
> __ __
>
> /Roger____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org
<mailto:slawre...@apache.org>
> <mailto:slawre...@apache.org <mailto:slawre...@apache.org>>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 2, 2024 9:18 AM
> *To:* users@daffodil.apache.org
<mailto:users@daffodil.apache.org> <mailto:users@daffodil.apache.org
<mailto:users@daffodil.apache.org>>
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: Parsing 5 million lines of input is taking 4
> minutes - too slow!____
>
> __ __
>
> You are correct that daffodil builds an internal infoset and then
> serializes that to something else (e. g. XML, EXI, JSON). One
way to
> get a decent approximation for how much time is used for the
former
> is to use the "null" infoset outputter, ____
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart____
>
> You are correct that daffodil builds an internal infoset and
then ____
>
> serializes that to something else (e.g. XML, EXI, JSON). One
way to
> get ____
>
> a decent approximation for how much time is used for the
former is
> to ____
>
> use the "null" infoset outputter, e.g.____
>
> __ __
>
> daffodil parse -I null ...____
>
> __ __
>
> This still parses data and builds the internal infoset but turns
> infoset ____
>
> serialization into a no-op.____
>
> __ __
>
> On 2023-12-26 02:04 PM, Roger L Costello wrote:____
>
> > Hi Folks,____
>
> > ____
>
> > My input file contains 5 million 132-character records.____
>
> > ____
>
> > I have done everything that I can think of to make the
parsing faster:____
>
> > ____
>
> > 1. I precompiled the schema and used it to do the parsing____
>
> > 2. I set Java -Xmx40960m____
>
> > 3. I used a bunch of dfdl:choiceDispatchKey to
divide-and-conquer____
>
> > ____
>
> > And yet it still takes 4 minutes before the (4 GB) XML file
is produced. ____
>
> > Waiting 4 minutes is not acceptable for my clients.____
>
> > ____
>
> > A couple of questions:____
>
> > ____
>
> > 1. Is there anything else that I can do to speed things
up?____
>
> > 2. I believe there is time needed to do the parsing and
generate an____
>
> > in-memory parse tree, and there is time needed to
serialize the____
>
> > in-memory parse tree to an XML file. Is there a way to
find those____
>
> > two times? I suspect the former is a lot quicker than
the latter.____
>
> > ____
>
> > /Roger____
>
> > ____
>
> __ __
>
