cgaebel at uwaterloo.ca
Sun Jul 14 13:31:05 CEST 2013
Similarly, I've always used:
import qualified Data.HashSet as S
nub :: Hashable a => [a] -> [a]
nub = S.toList . S.fromList
And i can't think of any type which i can't write a Hashable instance, so
this is extremely practical.
On Jul 14, 2013 7:24 AM, "Niklas Hambüchen" <mail at nh2.me> wrote:
> tldr: nub is abnormally slow, we shouldn't use it, but we do.
> As you might know, Data.List.nub is O(n²). (*)
> As you might not know, almost *all* practical Haskell projects use it,
> and that in places where an Ord instance is given, e.g. happy, Xmonad,
> ghc-mod, Agda, darcs, QuickCheck, yesod, shake, Cabal, haddock, and 600
> more (see https://github.com/nh2/haskell-ordnub).
> I've taken the Ord-based O(n * log n) implementation from yi using a Set:
> ordNub :: (Ord a) => [a] -> [a]
> ordNub l = go empty l
> go _  = 
> go s (x:xs) = if x `member` s then go s xs
> else x : go (insert x s) xs
> and put benchmarks on
> (compare `nub` vs `ordNub`).
> `ordNub` is not only in a different complexity class, but even seems to
> perform better than nub for very small numbers of actually different
> list elements (that's the numbers before the benchmark names).
> (The benchmark also shows some other potential problem: Using a state
> monad to keep the set instead of a function argument can be up to 20
> times slower. Should that happen?)
> What do you think about ordNub?
> I've seen a proposal from 5 years ago about adding a *sort*Nub function
> started by Neil, but it just died.
> (*) The mentioned complexity is for the (very common) worst case, in
> which the number of different elements in the list grows with the list
> (alias you don't have an N element list with always only 5 different
> things inside).
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe