Premature optimization caught up with me as well(martin.leyrer.priv.at)
martin.leyrer.priv.at
Premature optimization caught up with me as well
https://martin.leyrer.priv.at/y2022/m09/premature_optimisation.html
52 comments
Ya that paragraph is ripe for cherry picking that often quoted nugget. But right after it is "we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%". And further along, "the universal experience of programmers who have been using measurement tools has been that their intuitive guesses fail." That one I think is the most important. You don't even know what you should optimize until you measure. You could end up spending a lot of time and energy on the wrong problem.
It's like the problem is the ambiguous definition of "premature".
I think by itself the phrase is taken to mean to keep the code high level and abstract as long as it might still need to change, and then only optimize once it's overall structure is established, because once you start optimizing for performance you are carving stone and destroying flexibility.
But the full context shows that the word "premature" in this context means to say that it's premature to optimize before you even know what to optimize.
I think by itself the phrase is taken to mean to keep the code high level and abstract as long as it might still need to change, and then only optimize once it's overall structure is established, because once you start optimizing for performance you are carving stone and destroying flexibility.
But the full context shows that the word "premature" in this context means to say that it's premature to optimize before you even know what to optimize.
Those of us who have been doing this a long time develop an awareness of our "hot path", and defend it against encroachments. Work keeping speed bumps out of our hot path is not premature.
Performance is not a primary objective for most software. For the subset where it is, most performance is architectural; if you don't design for performance from the outset then you'll never be able to add it later.
People that have been in the performance business a long time, the kind of people you want if performance matters, can estimate the performance of code without running it to a degree of accuracy that is surprising to people with no performance engineering experience. Not understanding the relationship between code and performance is not the same as no one being able to understand the relationship between code and performance. It is a specialized discipline but people in it don't need to measure code for macro-optimization purposes. You still need to measure some things for micro-optimization purposes, but even there you'll find savants that really don't need to.
Naturally, there is an element of many developers overestimating their ability to estimate code performance. That is not universal though. I've worked with developers that could consistently and precisely describe the performance characteristics of code on real hardware without running it. A lot of computer science is premised on this being possible. Acting like this is unknowable is doing a disservice to computer science as a discipline.
If you understand how code interacts with hardware then performance is deterministic and obvious. There are degrees, of course, but some developers have a deeply intuitive understanding of these relationships.
People that have been in the performance business a long time, the kind of people you want if performance matters, can estimate the performance of code without running it to a degree of accuracy that is surprising to people with no performance engineering experience. Not understanding the relationship between code and performance is not the same as no one being able to understand the relationship between code and performance. It is a specialized discipline but people in it don't need to measure code for macro-optimization purposes. You still need to measure some things for micro-optimization purposes, but even there you'll find savants that really don't need to.
Naturally, there is an element of many developers overestimating their ability to estimate code performance. That is not universal though. I've worked with developers that could consistently and precisely describe the performance characteristics of code on real hardware without running it. A lot of computer science is premised on this being possible. Acting like this is unknowable is doing a disservice to computer science as a discipline.
If you understand how code interacts with hardware then performance is deterministic and obvious. There are degrees, of course, but some developers have a deeply intuitive understanding of these relationships.
> For the subset where it is, most performance is architectural; if you don't design for performance from the outset then you'll never be able to add it later.
This conclusion is strange to me. Literally every performance improvement I’ve seen is done at the end of a project. Of course you try to avoid architectural defects, but software is not immutable. So you punt the performance work later in the cycle once a) you’ve verified the approach overall roughly works b) you’re confident you have a handle on the business needs c) you have identified a need to improve performance. Any performance defects that turn out to be architectural in nature are still fixable, just more expensive (hence the desire to fix the most obvious ones). For example, look at any piece of Google infrastructure. They always go through several iterations because it doesn’t matter how good your intuition may be. You can still be wrong and the landscape isn’t static so whatever was right at the time may have evolved to not be as right. For example, protobufs made the right choice about encoding for space when bandwidth was more limited. Now that bandwidth is much more free and compression is more effective, it’s better to use compressors instead of trying to find a more optimal binary coding.
This conclusion is strange to me. Literally every performance improvement I’ve seen is done at the end of a project. Of course you try to avoid architectural defects, but software is not immutable. So you punt the performance work later in the cycle once a) you’ve verified the approach overall roughly works b) you’re confident you have a handle on the business needs c) you have identified a need to improve performance. Any performance defects that turn out to be architectural in nature are still fixable, just more expensive (hence the desire to fix the most obvious ones). For example, look at any piece of Google infrastructure. They always go through several iterations because it doesn’t matter how good your intuition may be. You can still be wrong and the landscape isn’t static so whatever was right at the time may have evolved to not be as right. For example, protobufs made the right choice about encoding for space when bandwidth was more limited. Now that bandwidth is much more free and compression is more effective, it’s better to use compressors instead of trying to find a more optimal binary coding.
Of course it is not the best use of time to optimize from day one if there is no need to have this piece of software to be fast/efficient, but if performance is an important requirement it's too late to add it at the end. You cannot optimize Apache 1.x to handle 1M concurrent connections and 1M request per second (without rewriting it more or less fully). Nginx can handle such load on a single modern server because attention to performance (efficiency) was paid from the start of development.
If performance is awful to begin with you can improve it visibly by fixing a few hot-spots (like unnecessary O(N^2) for N which can be large). But when I do profiling for software which is not too bad to begin with there usually no single place which can be changed to give statistically significant improvement - there are many comparably slow places. One can try to improve them piece by piece but sooner or later abstractions will get in the way and if performance is still not enough you'll need to start from scratch keeping performance in mind.
If performance is awful to begin with you can improve it visibly by fixing a few hot-spots (like unnecessary O(N^2) for N which can be large). But when I do profiling for software which is not too bad to begin with there usually no single place which can be changed to give statistically significant improvement - there are many comparably slow places. One can try to improve them piece by piece but sooner or later abstractions will get in the way and if performance is still not enough you'll need to start from scratch keeping performance in mind.
Depends on the size of architectural changes needed. I've worked in industry a while though and architectural changes to enable better optimizations happen all the time. You can't know you need a v2 until you've built v1 and understand what the problems with v1 are in production / where things fall down.
He's making a more general statement, with "root of all evil", that improving some aspect of something without understanding its effects on the whole outcome, is literally the root cause of evil in the world, in general. Winning the battle but losing the war. Not seeing the forest for the trees. Getting lost in the weeds. Unenlightened self-interest. Not hyperbole, but a particular instance of a general concept.
But on code optimization, k deeply nested loops are not a bad guide to O(n^k), and a candidate for optimization.
That said, I once cached something that obviously needed to be cached - so obvious in fact that a deeper level in the system already cached it.
But on code optimization, k deeply nested loops are not a bad guide to O(n^k), and a candidate for optimization.
That said, I once cached something that obviously needed to be cached - so obvious in fact that a deeper level in the system already cached it.
But even that has to be taken with a grain of salt. There are kinds of critical code that are hard to identify. Think of the infamous O(n^2) algorithms which are not identified unless you measure high values of n. Or not well coordinated threads that slow down a programm only on specific occasions.
Yes, but conversely, there are cases where O(1), O(N) and O(N^2) are all perceptually the same in all cases of a particular program. There's a bit of an art to determining what is critical and non-critical.
I agree. This is immature optimization.
Back to ”Premature optimization is the root of all evil”: I think that’s a bad statement. The only thing that says something there is all, and it is incorrect.
“Premature (noun) is the root of evil” is true for about every noun you can out there. “Premature design is the root of evil”, “Premature programming is the root of evil”, “Premature debugging is the root of evil”, etc.
Adding all implies there aren’t other things that are (in this context) roots of evil. I don’t think that’s true. As an example, one can spend excessive amounts of effort thinking about, or worrying about the ‘beauty’ of source code.
Back to ”Premature optimization is the root of all evil”: I think that’s a bad statement. The only thing that says something there is all, and it is incorrect.
“Premature (noun) is the root of evil” is true for about every noun you can out there. “Premature design is the root of evil”, “Premature programming is the root of evil”, “Premature debugging is the root of evil”, etc.
Adding all implies there aren’t other things that are (in this context) roots of evil. I don’t think that’s true. As an example, one can spend excessive amounts of effort thinking about, or worrying about the ‘beauty’ of source code.
I suspect when Knuth first came up with this phrase, he didn't expect it to be taken as gospel.
The original biblical quote it riffs off is often, mostly, misquoted as: Money is the root of evil.
It actually is (give or take for translation) "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
Timothy 6:10
The love...
A root...
All kinds...
It actually is (give or take for translation) "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
Timothy 6:10
The love...
A root...
All kinds...
>A good programmer will not be lulled into complacency by such reasoning
And that's the crux of it. Donald neglected to understand that most programmers will takeaway "optimization is bad" and all the subtleties of his point will be lost.
Then we get things like electron (ducks for cover)
And that's the crux of it. Donald neglected to understand that most programmers will takeaway "optimization is bad" and all the subtleties of his point will be lost.
Then we get things like electron (ducks for cover)
Donald was also writing at a time when all languages were close to the metal and optimization meant using various tricks (or writing critical portions in assembly) to improve performance.
>"when all languages were close to the metal"
That writing was 1974, Lisp had already existed.
That writing was 1974, Lisp had already existed.
And even caches. Though we called it "core", back then. Main memory was disk, tape, or drum, and cache misses caused page faults, if you were fortunate, or you had to roll in overlays yourself. Nowadays RAM is as inaccessible as disk was then, and you swap 64-byte pages, sometimes with network negotiations with remote (NUMA) cores, all in hardware.
> Then we get things like electron
We get electron because it's a batteries included (and remote and TV) cross platform GUI.
And has a huge talent pool, and acceptable performance for most users.
We get electron because it's a batteries included (and remote and TV) cross platform GUI.
And has a huge talent pool, and acceptable performance for most users.
Perhaps a better understood paraphrase: Never guess at performance, and don’t measure for performance until the application works.
1st part. YES. 2nd part. NO. If your end goal needs to meet a certain mark then you need to be measuring as you go. If you are headed down the wrong path, by not paying attention to perf you'll end up bogged down rewriting systems that 'work' but they were never going to be fast enough. I've been through this headache too many times now to not get a little irritated when projects don't keep perf and memory usage on the same importance as 'working'. This often manifest by developing on much more powerful hardware than will be shipped on...
All you need is the measure part. Then you won't do the evil thing of optimizing something that makes it more brittle and hard to maintain etc.
All you need is the measure part. Then you won't do the evil thing of optimizing something that makes it more brittle and hard to maintain etc.
I agree in theory but not in practice. Most developers have no idea how to measure the performance of a software product either in code units, libraries, features, or the product as a whole. Worse, they really have no idea what to measure. This is even after you’ve passed that tremendous hurdle that you need measurements not assumptions.
A large part of that is due to the immaturity of software as a profession relative to other professions. Measuring things takes tremendous effort and many developers don’t want to challenge their deeply held assumptions of how things work. Often when you present performance measures to developers they will invent an excuse to throw the data out if they don’t like the conclusion.
A large part of that is due to the immaturity of software as a profession relative to other professions. Measuring things takes tremendous effort and many developers don’t want to challenge their deeply held assumptions of how things work. Often when you present performance measures to developers they will invent an excuse to throw the data out if they don’t like the conclusion.
If performance matters, you hire the subset of programmers who do have an idea about performance, and who even get it right before measuring.
Sigh, this is true.
Better training and better tools can help make obvious their mistakes but I don't know how to combat the dogma. I've often been shocked how almost superstitious developers are - you'd think developers would have a more scientific approach but they are just as likely to chase after ghosts than optimize what needs to be optimized.
Better training and better tools can help make obvious their mistakes but I don't know how to combat the dogma. I've often been shocked how almost superstitious developers are - you'd think developers would have a more scientific approach but they are just as likely to chase after ghosts than optimize what needs to be optimized.
Wrap a timer around your tests, there that is measuring something!
Well it’s not like you don’t keep it in mind. Your project has some baseline performance need and you should be building with the common practices and paradigms you used to build the other parts. The point is, don’t try to guess which part might need optimization tweaks. Write it first and then prove you need to spend extra time improving something.
But don't write it all first, that is don't wait until your shipping. I mean if you are trying to be first to market maybe that changes things. Everyone's developing different things in different markets but in my experience developers tend to hold onto that particular mantra, and it turns into wait until the last minute to actually check perf. See other comment about the immaturity of the industry which I agree with.
So 90% of programming is crap? (Sturgeon's law)
Seriously though, there are plenty of developers who can cautiously evaluate performance as they go. It's just that it's not a super common skill (nor is writing low level code, etc), but it exists and is happening all the time. Game devs for example.
Seriously though, there are plenty of developers who can cautiously evaluate performance as they go. It's just that it's not a super common skill (nor is writing low level code, etc), but it exists and is happening all the time. Game devs for example.
While premature optimization is still evil, I think it's no longer the root of it.
Average quality of developer is way lower than it used to be (people aren't even capable of optimization). The need for optimization is also not as high: hardware is fast and cheap, abundance of Electron apps illustrates that.
I have a feeling that today is the age of premature abstractions and premature scalability.
The main point is that there's the right and the wrong time to do anything: optimization, scaling, testing, monitoring, etc. When a concept is deemed absolutely positive, naturally it will be applied prematurely.
Average quality of developer is way lower than it used to be (people aren't even capable of optimization). The need for optimization is also not as high: hardware is fast and cheap, abundance of Electron apps illustrates that.
I have a feeling that today is the age of premature abstractions and premature scalability.
The main point is that there's the right and the wrong time to do anything: optimization, scaling, testing, monitoring, etc. When a concept is deemed absolutely positive, naturally it will be applied prematurely.
I am ambivalent about your assertion. Developers can do much more while knowing much less than in the past, a lot of complicated details that could not be ignored in the past are out of sight and out of mind. However, from a systems engineering view, our software is deeply and vastly more complicated than it used to be. We routinely use software today that had no complexity equivalent in the 1990s.
No one wrote software in the 1990s like the advanced software we write today, it is qualitatively different. I think that perspective is lost on a lot of people that are not as old as I am. That increase in complexity is a serious barrier to understanding. The state-of-the-art today requires cognitive abilities that are much higher than they used to be. Hell, it is why C used to be an adequate language for most tasks.
No one wrote software in the 1990s like the advanced software we write today, it is qualitatively different. I think that perspective is lost on a lot of people that are not as old as I am. That increase in complexity is a serious barrier to understanding. The state-of-the-art today requires cognitive abilities that are much higher than they used to be. Hell, it is why C used to be an adequate language for most tasks.
I feel like what you’re referring to is mainly web dev? There I agree a lot about premature scaling - a lot of people build out for the size of web site they hope to have, and not for the size they have or end up with. That might not be entirely the wrong choice for a startup, there absolutely is a certain amount of guessing what you’ll need if everything goes well.
> Average quality of developer is way lower than it used to be
I think this is an illusion based on the fact that the number of software developers is growing quickly, which means that most of them are new & young at all times, giving the misleading impression that things are trending down from the perspective of someone experienced. In absolute numbers, there might also seem to be a lot more unserious developers today than 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, but there’s also many many more serious and extremely good devs too, and that can be harder to see from where you sit. Schools have gotten better in many (but not all) ways too.
> The need for optimization is also not as high
With Moore’s law slowing down, and with competition in software greater than ever before, and with improvements to compute continuing to outpace improvements in memory bandwidth, I think the complete opposite is true, that the need for optimization has never been higher and is increasing as we speak. And I think in practice more people are optimizing systems like crazy compared to when I was younger. In school we learned about the occasional writing of a small loop in assembly language. Today we have cloud caches, and GPUs running CUDA code, and much better compilers. You might just not be getting exposure to optimization where you work, and there are places where people don’t see a lot of it, but there are tons of groups and companies where people are always optimizing. I see a lot of it, and I don’t think Electron apps demonstrate it’s not happening. Electron exists and is popular because it’s easy, and that’s a valid development choice for a lot of people. It might be slow, but there have always been frameworks that are easy to use that are slow. And then there have always been the people who care about performance and avoid slow frameworks, they’re still here and growing in number.
> Average quality of developer is way lower than it used to be
I think this is an illusion based on the fact that the number of software developers is growing quickly, which means that most of them are new & young at all times, giving the misleading impression that things are trending down from the perspective of someone experienced. In absolute numbers, there might also seem to be a lot more unserious developers today than 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, but there’s also many many more serious and extremely good devs too, and that can be harder to see from where you sit. Schools have gotten better in many (but not all) ways too.
> The need for optimization is also not as high
With Moore’s law slowing down, and with competition in software greater than ever before, and with improvements to compute continuing to outpace improvements in memory bandwidth, I think the complete opposite is true, that the need for optimization has never been higher and is increasing as we speak. And I think in practice more people are optimizing systems like crazy compared to when I was younger. In school we learned about the occasional writing of a small loop in assembly language. Today we have cloud caches, and GPUs running CUDA code, and much better compilers. You might just not be getting exposure to optimization where you work, and there are places where people don’t see a lot of it, but there are tons of groups and companies where people are always optimizing. I see a lot of it, and I don’t think Electron apps demonstrate it’s not happening. Electron exists and is popular because it’s easy, and that’s a valid development choice for a lot of people. It might be slow, but there have always been frameworks that are easy to use that are slow. And then there have always been the people who care about performance and avoid slow frameworks, they’re still here and growing in number.
> I have a feeling that today is the age of premature abstractions and premature scalability
which are optimizations.
which are optimizations.
I agree with this, mostly. I've worked at many a company where I've inherited the work of developers who built towards an expected view of the future. That expected future, of course, never quite lined up with the future that did come to pass. So a lot of extra work building out the wrong abstraction lead to a lot more work to undo it.
I would disagree with you only that I'm not familiar with a time when premature monitoring was added that caused me a lot of pain. If anything, the opposite has been true. Can you explain what you mean there?
I would disagree with you only that I'm not familiar with a time when premature monitoring was added that caused me a lot of pain. If anything, the opposite has been true. Can you explain what you mean there?
It all comes down to cost. Most of the time you can get kind monitoring for free or at a very low cost. AWS gives you a bunch of metrics out of the box for every product. Wrap your webapp in newrelic-agent and get a bunch of nice dashboards. But the more you want to monitor, the higher the costs are.
There's a lot of examples where you can catch something with monitoring, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you should.
A recent one from my memory: in a SaaS product a team shipped a bug that went unnoticed for a few days. It was feature flagged, so it only affected a small fraction of customers and didn't trigger any global alerts. Now, since it didn't trigger alerts, the natural post-mortem action plan was "better monitoring". That would mean monitoring and alerting on "rate of errors by customer" (or "rate of errors by endpoint by customer", I don't remember).
Given the usage pattern of the product, it was impossible to create a global monitor like that, we'd have manually configure it for each customer (and we had thousands of those). And even then, we'd inevitably be dealing with false positives every week.
The right action plan was to learn from failure, but do nothing. We got extremely unlucky during infrastructure update, shit happens. We don't need to build a complex monitoring system that catches one bug every 5 years.
There's a lot of examples where you can catch something with monitoring, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you should.
A recent one from my memory: in a SaaS product a team shipped a bug that went unnoticed for a few days. It was feature flagged, so it only affected a small fraction of customers and didn't trigger any global alerts. Now, since it didn't trigger alerts, the natural post-mortem action plan was "better monitoring". That would mean monitoring and alerting on "rate of errors by customer" (or "rate of errors by endpoint by customer", I don't remember).
Given the usage pattern of the product, it was impossible to create a global monitor like that, we'd have manually configure it for each customer (and we had thousands of those). And even then, we'd inevitably be dealing with false positives every week.
The right action plan was to learn from failure, but do nothing. We got extremely unlucky during infrastructure update, shit happens. We don't need to build a complex monitoring system that catches one bug every 5 years.
The root of all evil is someone claiming to know the root of all evil.
Snarky, but in my experience 6 sigma true.
Snarky, but in my experience 6 sigma true.
Premature optimization may be the root of all evil. But failing to architect an application from the start for reasonable performance and scalability is the premature root of all optimization.
I don't think that this is always possible. For one, I've yet to meet anyone who can meaningfully predict:
a. What features are going to be added over the course of your application b. What features are going to be popular c. How these features scale, independently of the overall application
Architecting for reasonable performance should always be a goal. Architecting for scalability, however, is often wishful thinking that from my experiences has lead to more harm than good.
a. What features are going to be added over the course of your application b. What features are going to be popular c. How these features scale, independently of the overall application
Architecting for reasonable performance should always be a goal. Architecting for scalability, however, is often wishful thinking that from my experiences has lead to more harm than good.
It depends on your field of course. With experience, you will understand how to do things and you won't even realize how many mistakes you avoided by just not 'being stupid'. In my area it's often best to do a pre-production phase that is more of an R&D phase to explore the tech you need to incorporate or invent. This is where you iterate and yes optimize. It's hard to estimate at this stage. Then in the production phase you can have smoother sailing as the tech is established and the content is more or less production line. Estimates are accurate. Like a factory.
This famous saying was true when they were writing IBM operating systems in pure assembly language.
Not true today.
Head down some optimisation path instead of just getting the damn thing to work - that could sink the project.
Today - speed is a feature.
Not true today.
Head down some optimisation path instead of just getting the damn thing to work - that could sink the project.
Today - speed is a feature.
I would imagine that the root of all evil is anytime you do something without having a clear goal in doing it.
Premature optimization is when you optimize without a slowdown anyone has noticed.
Going overboard with architecture is designing for scale when you have had no need to scale.
But does the fact that a business will push you to keep delivering new features mean that it's often better to prematurely optimize, prematurely architect, so that you don't end up stuck with code that you hate and can't maintain?
Premature optimization is when you optimize without a slowdown anyone has noticed.
Going overboard with architecture is designing for scale when you have had no need to scale.
But does the fact that a business will push you to keep delivering new features mean that it's often better to prematurely optimize, prematurely architect, so that you don't end up stuck with code that you hate and can't maintain?
And premature scaling. Would someone please tell every tech company’s interviewers?
"Premature optimization" is when something non critical takes a miniscule unnoticeable amount of time and you go down a rabbit hole to try to make it take even less time.
When something takes 3 minutes we're beyond talking about optimization. Something that takes 3 minutes is usually a sure sign of really really bad architecture, unless we're talking about time intensive tasks like video encoding or downloading a huge amount of data. And even then you need to question: do we need to download this much data?
When something takes 3 minutes we're beyond talking about optimization. Something that takes 3 minutes is usually a sure sign of really really bad architecture, unless we're talking about time intensive tasks like video encoding or downloading a huge amount of data. And even then you need to question: do we need to download this much data?
And as usually applied, "All optimization is either premature or too distruptive to bother with".
Ansible is just slow in itself. I dread loops using Ansible, because I know there is a significant delay even on localhost. Just removing 20+ files in a loop with Ansible can take 20 seconds when it is instantaneous using `rm`.
[deleted]
Premature interpretation of the phrase “premature optimization is the root of all evil” is the root of all evil.
> I jumped to the conclusion that the yum update was just too slow and I needed to speed it up.
That is not premature optimisation. That's called plain old jumping to conclusions. Next.
That is not premature optimisation. That's called plain old jumping to conclusions. Next.
wrong.
Every program that has any need for optimization will quickly turn into a death by a thousand cuts.
There is no right or wrong level of premature optimization, it all comes down to how much time it takes to code it to be more performant. if it takes a tiny amount of time, do so, even if you get little gains. if it takes twice as long to make it more performant, only do so if necessary or results in more than 50% gains.
Every program that has any need for optimization will quickly turn into a death by a thousand cuts.
There is no right or wrong level of premature optimization, it all comes down to how much time it takes to code it to be more performant. if it takes a tiny amount of time, do so, even if you get little gains. if it takes twice as long to make it more performant, only do so if necessary or results in more than 50% gains.
Hmm, that's not premature optimization, that's lacking diagnostic skill problem.
It is best explained by Donald Knuth himself. The full quote is:
> "Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%. A good programmer will not be lulled into complacency by such reasoning, he will be wise to look carefully at the critical code; but only after that code has been identified. It is often a mistake to make a priori judgments about what parts of a program are really critical, since the universal experience of programmers who have been using measurement tools has been that their intuitive guesses fail.".
Source: Structured Programming with go to Statements by Donald E. Knuth. http://web.archive.org/web/20130731202547/http://pplab.snu.a...