Speedup take_bytes (-35% -69%) by precalculating capacity

[Dandandan]

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #7432

Rationale for this change

Performance improvements:

Benchmarking take str 512: Collecting 100 samples in estimated 5.0014 s (1.3M ittake str 512            time:   [3.9906 µs 3.9937 µs 3.9970 µs]
                        change: [-45.040% -44.844% -44.657%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
  3 (3.00%) high mild

Benchmarking take str 1024: Collecting 100 samples in estimated 5.0285 s (556k itake str 1024           time:   [9.0347 µs 9.0435 µs 9.0519 µs]
                        change: [-69.387% -69.048% -68.716%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
  2 (2.00%) high mild

Benchmarking take str null indices 512: Collecting 100 samples in estimated 5.00take str null indices 512
                        time:   [2.4167 µs 2.4209 µs 2.4269 µs]
                        change: [-48.977% -48.536% -48.234%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 13 outliers among 100 measurements (13.00%)
  1 (1.00%) low severe
  3 (3.00%) low mild
  3 (3.00%) high mild
  6 (6.00%) high severe

Benchmarking take str null indices 1024: Collecting 100 samples in estimated 5.0take str null indices 1024
                        time:   [5.9829 µs 5.9940 µs 6.0151 µs]
                        change: [-57.375% -54.878% -52.153%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 7 outliers among 100 measurements (7.00%)
  2 (2.00%) low severe
  2 (2.00%) high mild
  3 (3.00%) high severe

Benchmarking take str null values 1024: Collecting 100 samples in estimated 5.00take str null values 1024
                        time:   [6.1283 µs 6.1357 µs 6.1418 µs]
                        change: [-23.035% -22.635% -22.315%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 22 outliers among 100 measurements (22.00%)
  10 (10.00%) low severe
  2 (2.00%) low mild
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  9 (9.00%) high severe

Benchmarking take str null values null indices 1024: Collecting 100 samples in etake str null values null indices 1024
                        time:   [5.2781 µs 5.2905 µs 5.3024 µs]
                        change: [-9.2518% -8.9305% -8.6089%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.

# What changes are included in this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

[Dandandan]

This is ready now

[mbutrovich]

Is it fair to say that in general you've done a few refactors recently that replace MutableBuffer with Vec or collecting directly into the target Buffer type? Is there a particular pattern with MutableBuffer that we should be avoiding?

[Dandandan]

Is it fair to say that in general you've done a few refactors recently that replace MutableBuffer with Vec or collecting directly into the target Buffer type? Is there a particular pattern with MutableBuffer that we should be avoiding?

I think at this point there is little point in using MutableBuffer over Vec as the latter provides more performant (specialization over T, better inlining), slightly more safe and more complete API. The same probably applies for a lot of Builder-type APIs probably.

It might be worth spending some time documenting the best and most performant way to construct / transform Arrow arrays and apply it accross the arrow-rs create (marking stuff as deprecated if needed).

[mbutrovich]

I will take a proper review pass this afternoon.

[mbutrovich]

Do you see the same performance regression for take stringview? I'm still just digging into the code to see if that is even possible.

Main:

take stringview 512     time:   [287.26 ns 287.75 ns 288.28 ns]

take stringview 1024    time:   [489.07 ns 489.99 ns 491.18 ns]

PR:

take stringview 512     time:   [360.36 ns 361.02 ns 361.95 ns]

take stringview 1024    time:   [633.66 ns 633.79 ns 633.98 ns]

[Dandandan]

Do you see the same performance regression for take stringview? I'm still just digging into the code to see if that is even possible.

Main:

take stringview 512     time:   [287.26 ns 287.75 ns 288.28 ns]

take stringview 1024    time:   [489.07 ns 489.99 ns 491.18 ns]

PR:

take stringview 512     time:   [360.36 ns 361.02 ns 361.95 ns]

take stringview 1024    time:   [633.66 ns 633.79 ns 633.98 ns]

I am not at a machine right now to test, but StringView doesn't use this code path.

[mbutrovich]

I am not at a machine right now to test, but StringView doesn't use this code path.

Generated code looks the same, so must be some sort of noise on my machine.

[mbutrovich]

I think at this point there is little point in using MutableBuffer over Vec as the latter provides more performant (specialization over T, better inlining), slightly more safe and more complete API. The same probably applies for a lot of Builder-type APIs probably.

It might be worth spending some time documenting the best and most performant way to construct / transform Arrow arrays and apply it accross the arrow-rs create (marking stuff as deprecated if needed).

This LGTM and is a great improvement. I also would love to see this documentation if you don't mind dumping your thoughts on the topic while they're fresh!