knitr::opts_chunk$set( collapse = TRUE, comment = "#>" ) # used inside the plot function, but not in user-visible code library(forcats) library(tidyr) library(ggbeeswarm)
library(glue) library(ggplot2) library(bench) library(dplyr)
Glue is advertised as
Fast, dependency free string literals
So what do we mean when we say that glue is fast? This does not mean glue is the fastest thing to use in all cases, however for the features it provides we can confidently say it is fast.
A good way to determine this is to compare its speed of execution to some alternatives.
base::paste0()
, base::sprintf()
: Functions in base R implemented in C
that provide variable insertion (but not interpolation).R.utils::gstring()
: Provides a similar interface as glue, but uses ${}
to
delimit blocks to interpolate.pystr::pystr_format()
[^1], rprintf::rprintf()
: Provide an interface
similar to python string formatters with variable replacement, but not
arbitrary interpolation.Note: stringr::str_interp()
was previously included in this benchmark, but is now formally marked as "superseded", in favor of stringr::str_glue()
, which just calls glue::glue()
.
plot_comparison <- function(x, ...) { dat <- x %>% mutate(expression = fct_reorder(as.character(expression), min, .desc = TRUE)) %>% arrange(expression) %>% mutate(accent = expression == "glue", .after = expression) %>% unnest(c(time, gc)) ggplot(dat) + aes(expression, time) + geom_quasirandom(aes(color = accent), ..., show.legend = FALSE) + scale_color_manual(values = c("FALSE" = "grey", "TRUE" = "orange")) + coord_flip() }
bar <- "baz" simple <- bench::mark( glue = as.character(glue::glue("foo{bar}")), gstring = R.utils::gstring("foo${bar}"), paste0 = paste0("foo", bar), sprintf = sprintf("foo%s", bar), rprintf = rprintf::rprintf("foo$bar", bar = bar) ) simple %>% select(expression:total_time) %>% arrange(median) # plotting function defined in a hidden chunk plot_comparison(simple)
While glue()
is slower than paste0
and sprintf()
, it is twice as fast as gstring()
, and rprintf()
.
Although paste0()
and sprintf()
don't do string interpolation and will likely always be significantly faster than glue, glue was never meant to be a direct replacement for them.
rprintf::rprintf()
does only variable interpolation, not arbitrary expressions, which was one of the explicit goals of writing glue.
So glue is ~2x as fast as the function (gstring()
), which has roughly equivalent functionality.
It also is still quite fast, with over 8000 evaluations per second on this machine.
Taking advantage of glue's vectorization is the best way to improve performance.
In a vectorized form of the previous benchmark, glue's performance is much closer to that of paste0()
and sprintf()
.
bar <- rep("bar", 1e5) vectorized <- bench::mark( glue = as.character(glue::glue("foo{bar}")), gstring = R.utils::gstring("foo${bar}"), paste0 = paste0("foo", bar), sprintf = sprintf("foo%s", bar), rprintf = rprintf::rprintf("foo$bar", bar = bar) ) vectorized %>% select(expression:total_time) %>% arrange(median) # plotting function defined in a hidden chunk plot_comparison(vectorized)
[^1]: pystr is no longer available from CRAN due to failure to correct installation errors and was therefore removed from further testing.
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.