Erlang Thursday Bonus! Performace of erlang:length/1 on a list

A bonus Erlang Thursday for everyone.

Giving the Dallas/Fort Worth Erlang User group presentation last week, we had a couple of people new to Erlang make it to our meeting, and the question was raised:

Do lists have any smarts around knowing their length, or does it have to run through all the items to calculate the length?

I was 99% sure that Erlang has to run through the list every time, since it uses linked lists style data structures for it’s list, but wasn’t sure if there might be something smart in the implementation that I wasn’t aware of to speed up that functionality.

In putting together the regularly scheduled Erlang Thursday post for today, I realized I should have busted out timer:tc to demonstrate the behavior of erlang:length/1 by showing how long it takes to get the length of different lists.

So in honor of that question, and as a reminder to review it at the next user group meeting, I am documenting the behavior here. And remember, that the first item in the result tuple is the time in microseconds the operation took.

timer:tc(erlang, length, [lists:seq(1, 10)]).
{2,10}
timer:tc(erlang, length, [lists:seq(1, 1000)]).
{5,1000}
timer:tc(erlang, length, [lists:seq(1, 10000)]).
{41,10000}
timer:tc(erlang, length, [lists:seq(1, 100000)]).
{134,100000}
timer:tc(erlang, length, [lists:seq(1, 1000000)]).
{1918,1000000}
timer:tc(erlang, length, [lists:seq(1, 10000000)]).
{25139,10000000}
timer:tc(erlang, length, [lists:seq(1, 100000000)]).
{1368691,100000000}

After about 1000 items in a linked list, we start growing lineraly in the time it takes to count the items, so if it is not doing an actual traversal of all the items, it has the same scale of doing so as far as the order of operations (Big-O) goes.

–Proctor

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *