CppCon
4 HN recommenders · recommended in 10 months, 2018–2026
31:19 · 122K views · Oct 5, 2016
Nicholas Ormrod's CppCon 2016 talk on how Facebook optimizes std::string with its open-source replacement fbstring. It covers storage layout tradeoffs, small string optimization and memory allocation behavior.
HN returns to it as the go-to talk on string internals, small string packing and why small percentage optimizations matter at scale.
11 comments from Hacker News
You'd be surprised how it actually is worth the effort, even just a 1% improvement. If you have the time, this is a great talk to listen to: this video For a little toy ray tracer, it is pretty measly. But for a larger corporation (with a professional project) a 4% speed improvement can mean MASSIVE cost savings. Some of these tiny improvements can also have a cascading effect. Imagining finding a +4%, a +2% somewhere else, +3% in neighboring code, and a bunch of +1%s here and there. Eventually you'll have built up something that is 15-20% faster. Down the road you'll come across those optimizations which can yield the big results too (e.g. the +25%).
The FAANGS certainly have people doing this kind of work. For example, Andrei Alexandrescu has a bunch of keynote talks at CPPCon where he talks about 1-4% speed optimisations he makes to the std library at Facebook. [LINK] I also like the talk by Nicholas Ormrod “The strange details of std::string at Facebook": this video
Yes, there are really cool packing techniques. See this talk for example: this video I don't include the null-terminator because I use this type in my own environment where I never use null-terminated strings so there is no need for it.
I think this is the talk you're referring to. If not, it's still definitely worth a watch: this video
You're all massively underestimating the memory requirements of a parsed data structure, which is very entertaining to watch. There's this rule-of-thumb that most programmers are wrong about performance costs by at least a couple of orders of magnitude, and it's on full display here. In most languages, dynamically allocated variable-sized objects have a minimum overhead of two pointer-sized fields: a pointer and a length. On a 64-bit platform, that's 16 bytes before you actually start having any data. Next, depending on the allocator used, the requested data size is probably rounded up, either to the next power of 2, or there may be a minimum allocation size of 1 pointer. That's "safe" on machines that can't do misaligned (byte-granularity) referencing directly from memory. Last but not least, most heap-based allocators have some "bookkeeping" overheads. Similarly, interpreted languages also have their internal "object" metadata overheads. Typically this is 1 or 2 extra pointers (+8 or +16 bytes). Assuming 24-48 bytes for all variable-length values is actually a pretty safe bet! There are exceptions: Unusually, C skips the 'length' value for strings by using null-termination, so C strings are often just 16 bytes (8 for the pointer, and 8 for the allocated object on the heap, assuming some sort of small-object optimisation is going on). The approach in C++ is to use "small string optimisation" where the string values are inlined into the std::string structure itself. This work