Measure the performance of different implementations of
cards using bench::mark().
library(cards)
library(reticulate)
phevaluator <- import("phevaluator")Data Frame
Benchmark the initial implementation using data.frame
compared to an integer() approach similar to PH Evaluator
card.py.
New Deck
Create a new deck using new_deck_df() and an integer
vector.
deck <- new_deck_df()
deck_int <- 0:51
bench::mark(new_deck_df())
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 new_deck_df() 14.8µs 17.3µs 56923. 1.25KB 57.0
bench::mark(0:51)
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 0:51 0 1ns 76114582. 0B 0While new_deck_df() is not designed to be called
frequently, using an integer vector is much faster.
Deal
Compare performance of deal_hand_df() to sampling
integers:
bench::mark(deal_hand_df(deck))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 deal_hand_df(deck) 13.5µs 15.6µs 64210. 3.73KB 57.8
bench::mark(sample(deck_int, 5))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 sample(deck_int, 5) 1.44µs 1.84µs 524241. 264B 52.4deal_hand_df() is about 7 times slower than
sample().
Test performance of print_hand_df() against a simple
function that prints cards based on integers.
test_hand <- deal_hand_df(deck)
bench::mark(print_hand_df(test_hand))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 print_hand_df(test_hand) 59.3µs 69.2µs 14358. 10.5KB 22.8
print_hand_int <- function(h) {
cards <- paste0(rep(c(2:9, "T", "J", "Q", "K", "A"), each = 4), c("C", "D", "H", "S"))
paste(cards[h + 1], collapse = " ")
}
test_hand_int <- sample(0:51, 5)
bench::mark(print_hand_int(test_hand_int))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 print_hand_int(test_hand_int) 4.18µs 4.88µs 196738. 928B 0print_hand_df() is 14-15 times slower than the integer
approach.
Evaluate
Test performance of eval_hand_df() with a single hand
and with randomly selected hands:
bench::mark(eval_hand_df(test_hand))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand_df(test_hand) 42.1µs 48.3µs 20653. 37KB 16.5
bench::mark(eval_hand_df(deal_hand_df(deck)))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:t> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand_df(deal_hand_df(deck)) 47µs 62.1µs 16014. 264B 18.5As expected for a naive poker hand evaluator, performance of
eval_hand_df() is poor compared to fast algorithms.
Summary
An implementation using integer would likely be much faster than the
first implementation using data.frame. Rank and suit can be
derived using integer division and modulo arithmetic respectively,and
tabulate() is a faster replacement for
rle().
0:51 %/% 4
#> [1] 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6
#> [26] 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12
#> [51] 12 12
tabulate(0:51 %/% 4 + 1, 13)
#> [1] 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
0:51 %% 4
#> [1] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1
#> [39] 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
tabulate(0:51 %% 4 + 1, 4)
#> [1] 13 13 13 13
bench::mark(rle(sort(sample(0:51, 5) %/% 4 + 1)))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:t> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 rle(sort(sample(0:51, 5)%/%4 + 1)) 15.4µs 17.9µs 55880. 264B 16.8
bench::mark(tabulate(sample(0:51, 5) %/% 4 + 1, 13))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 tabulate(sample(0:51, 5)%/%4 + 1, … 2.13µs 2.62µs 371589. 264B 37.2Note that the tabulate approach is 7 times faster than sorting and run length encoding.
Integer
Benchmark the second implementation using integer().
New Deck
Create a new deck using new_deck() and
new_deck_df().
deck_df <- new_deck_df()
deck <- new_deck()
bench::mark(new_deck_df())
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 new_deck_df() 15µs 17.3µs 57688. 1.25KB 17.3
bench::mark(new_deck())
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 new_deck() 0 41ns 19923001. 0B 0new_deck() is 90 times faster.
Deal
Compare performance of deal_hand_df() and
deal_hand()
bench::mark(deal_hand_df(deck_df))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 deal_hand_df(deck_df) 13.6µs 15.7µs 63230. 264B 19.0
bench::mark(deal_hand(deck))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 deal_hand(deck) 1.6µs 2.01µs 484160. 3.02KB 0deal_hand() is about 6 times faster.
Test performance of print_hand_df() against
print_hand().
test_hand_df <- deal_hand_df(deck_df)
test_hand <- deal_hand(deck)
bench::mark(print_hand_df(test_hand_df))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 print_hand_df(test_hand_df) 60.8µs 69.6µs 14330. 0B 18.7
bench::mark(print_hand(test_hand))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 print_hand(test_hand) 4.22µs 4.96µs 195999. 8.52KB 0print_hand() is 16 times faster.
Evaluate
Test performance of eval_hand_df() and
eval_hand() with a single hand.
bench::mark(eval_hand_df(test_hand_df))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand_df(test_hand_df) 39.2µs 45.2µs 22200. 0B 17.8
bench::mark(eval_hand(test_hand))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand(test_hand) 1.35µs 1.76µs 518620. 27.5KB 0eval_hand() is 20 times faster, but should perform
poorly compared to fast algorithms.
Multiple Hands
Compare performance evaluating and printing multiple hands.
bench::mark({
deck <- new_deck_df()
replicate(50, {
hand <- deal_hand_df(deck)
paste0(print_hand_df(hand), ": ", eval_hand_df(hand))
})
})
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 { deck <- new_deck_df() replicate(… 6.46ms 6.8ms 147. 34.1KB 21.0
bench::mark({
deck <- new_deck()
replicate(50, {
hand <- deal_hand(deck)
paste0(print_hand(hand), ": ", eval_hand(hand))
})
})
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 { deck <- new_deck() replicate(50, … 470µs 523µs 1889. 74KB 12.6Overall, the new implementation is 13-14 times faster.
Python
Benchmark the integer() approach to PH Evaluator
using reticulate.
Import
Test performance of phevaluator using
reticulate::import(), starting with
sample_cards():
bench::mark(deal_hand(deck))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 deal_hand(deck) 1.6µs 2.01µs 478122. 264B 47.8
bench::mark(phevaluator$sample_cards(5L))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 phevaluator$sample_cards(5L) 18.1µs 20.7µs 48328. 0B 4.83phevaluator$sample_cards() is 13 times slower than than
the R integer implementation.
Also test phevaluator$evaluate_card() against the R
integer method. evaluate_card() expects five to seven
integers passed as individual parameters.
bench::mark(eval_hand(test_hand))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand(test_hand) 1.48µs 1.76µs 525428. 0B 52.5
bench::mark(do.call(phevaluator$evaluate_cards, as.list(test_hand)))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 do.call(phevaluator$evaluate_cards… 20.7µs 23.8µs 42420. 0B 8.49Surprisingly, phevaluator is almost as slow as the
original data frame implementation. Test again using some specific hands
and avoid the overhead of do.call() and
as.list():
four_aces <- c(51L, 50L, 49L, 48L, 47L)
royal_flush <- c(50L, 46L, 42L, 38L, 34L)
bench::mark(eval_hand(four_aces))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand(four_aces) 656ns 861ns 1113434. 0B 0
bench::mark(phevaluator$evaluate_cards(51L, 50L, 49L, 48L, 47L))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 phevaluator$evaluate_cards(51L, 50… 18.6µs 21.3µs 47073. 0B 9.42
bench::mark(eval_hand(royal_flush))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand(royal_flush) 1.31µs 1.6µs 598872. 0B 0
bench::mark(phevaluator$evaluate_cards(50L, 46L, 42L, 38L, 34L))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 phevaluator$evaluate_cards(50L, 46… 18.4µs 21.3µs 47674. 0B 9.54Calling evaluate_cards() directly doesn’t significantly
change the results. Test once more with random hands:
bench::mark(eval_hand(deal_hand(deck)))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand(deal_hand(deck)) 2.71µs 3.77µs 261439. 264B 26.1
bench::mark(do.call(phevaluator$evaluate_cards, as.list(deal_hand(deck))))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:> <bch:> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 do.call(phevaluator$evaluate_cards… 22.9µs 26.2µs 38481. 264B 11.5Conclusion: using phevaluator via
reticulate::import() is not a faster way to evaluate hands.
It is important to note that phevaluator$evaluate_cards()
does more than eval_hand(), as phevaluator
ranks all poker hands and eval_hand() only determines the
hand rank category.
C/C++
Benchmark the integer() approach against the C/C++
implementation of PH Evaluator
using Rcpp.
The current version only implements eval_hand_phe(),
which uses EvaluateCards() and
describeCategory() to return the card rank category.
Evaluate
Test performance of eval_hand() and
eval_hand_phe() with a single hand:
bench::mark(eval_hand(test_hand))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand(test_hand) 1.48µs 1.84µs 514238. 0B 51.4
bench::mark(eval_hand_phe(test_hand))
#> # A tibble: 1 × 6
#> expression min median `itr/sec` mem_alloc `gc/sec`
#> <bch:expr> <bch:tm> <bch:tm> <dbl> <bch:byt> <dbl>
#> 1 eval_hand_phe(test_hand) 369ns 492ns 1980542. 2.24KB 0Somewhat surprisingly, eval_hand_phe() is only 2 times
faster than eval_hand(), however,
eval_hand_phe() doesn’t just evaluate hand rank category,
it also determines exact hand rank.
Reviewing the benchmarks on the PH Evaluator README and
on my own system, the compiled C/C++ implementation should be capable of
about 70 million hands per second, while eval_hand_phe()
achieves about 1 million per second. This is likely due to the
additional overhead of using R, and, more importantly, the additional
call to describeCategory(), as the benchmark code
only calls EvaluateCards().
A future implementation could implement the full pheval
libraries and the C++ code in card_sampler.h
to generate random hands in a standalone R package using Rcpp
Modules.