Skip to content

String table


Duktape 1.x to 2.0

The duk_hstring struct doesn't contain heap link (next/prev) pointers and strings are assumed to be tracked within the string table. Tracking is necessary at all times so that strings can be properly freed by mark-and-sweep heap destruction, etc.

Default string table, uses probe sequence

 `-->  duk_hstring *     Entries are duk_hstring pointers, with a special
           duk_hstring *     pointer value for DELETED entries.
           duk_hstring *

String table size is a prime, probe sequence uses modulus. The string table is resized based on a load factor check.

Alternative string table for low memory, uses chaining

 `-->  duk_strtab_entry --> listlen=0/n, union { str, strlist }

Each string table entry is either:

  • Unused (listlen == 0, str pointer == NULL)
  • Single string (listlen == 0, str pointer != NULL)
  • Array of strings in a separate allocation (listlen > 0, strlist pointer != NULL)

The string table size is a constant, and the string table is not resized.

Duktape 2.1

The two string table alternatives were replaced by a single algorithm in Duktape 2.1. The main approach is:

  • Add one-way link pointers (h_next field) to the duk_hstring entries so that the strings can be efficiently chained without an external container.
  • Use a string table of size 2 ** N so that a bit mask can be used to find string position.
  • In-place resize from 2 ** N to 2 ** (N + 1) and 2 ** (N - 1). For example, to reduce size, rehash in place to half of current size, and then reallocate the memory chunk. If the memory allocator can satisfy the realloc() in place, there's no need for a copy.
  • The hash table size is changed based on load factor (number of strings compared to table size). The size can be also be made constant for low memory environments where predictability is key; this imposes no string count limit because of chaining.

Duktape 2.1 details

Resizing the top level strtable

Load factor (average chain length) is easily computed by keeping track of number of strings inserted into the table:

load_factor = avg_len = num_strings / strtable_size

Average length is a cheap way of making resizing decisions. Also maximum chain length would be interesting for pathological cases -- however, resizing may not always solve pathological issues if strings with matching hashes are created on purpose. To solve that case, the hash algorithm would need to be changed on the fly to adapt to the input (difficult because existing strings need rehashing too).

When using chaining there's no mandatory need to do a shrink/grow at any specific time because the string table can hold an arbitrary number of strings at some performance cost. There are also no issues like accumulation of DELETED entries in the hash probe approach. Because of this, it's OK to do a resize check only from time to time, for example:

if ((num_strings & 0xff) == 0) {
    /* Resize check when string count is a multiple of 256. */

The grow/shrink check can also be limited to string insertion; while removals could technically lead to the need to shrink the allocation, it can almost always be delayed to later insertion processing.

The growth step is limited to doubling the current size of the string table. Except for very small string table sizes this is sufficient because when the need to resize is detected, only a limited number of string table inserts have been processed. So in practice there is no need to do multiple growth steps at once.

The shrink step is also limited to halving the current size. Because a lot of strings may be removed without any inserts in between (consider a large array of strings becoming unreachable), the string table load factor may remain very low (way below the shrink limit) until some inserts are done to detect the situation; and even after that it may take multiple resize checks to shrink the string table enough to get within the desired load factor range. However, this kind of very fast shrinks are not common in practice, and the current implementation will just do one halving per resize check. Emergency GC also does a resize check so each emergency GC round can halve the string table size if that's useful to satisfy the failing allocation.

The memory cost per string of the top level strtable is:

sizeof(duk_hstring *) * strtable_size / num_strings

For example:

  • For a load factor 1.0 the cost per string is exactly the pointer size.
  • For a load factor 2.0 the cost per string is half the pointer size.

Config options provide minimum and maximum sizes, and grow/shrink load factor limits expressed as fixed point integers. When minimum and maximum size are equal, no resize checks are done; this is useful for very low memory targets where a fixed size string table is often preferred.

Resizing in place

When the top level strtable is resized, it's useful to resize it in place so that the structure can be realloc()'d. In some cases that will avoid making an unnecessary copy.

For growing in place:

  • Reallocate the structure to twice previous size first.
  • Because the hash mask size grows by one bit, the new highest mask bit maps one existing bucket into two separate hash buckets. Strings need to be rehashed into their proper bucket.

For shrinking in place:

  • Two hash buckets, again distinguished by their highest hash mask bit, will now be merged into a single bucket. There's no need to do any has checks, the two buckets are just combined into one.
  • When complete, reallocate the structure. This is a shrink realloc() which we assume will always succeed. (Handling a realloc() failure would also be straightforward: just run the "grow" algorithm to restore strings into their original buckets.)

Because realloc() may have side effects, the following precautions are needed:

  • Recursive strtable resizes must be prevented. Because the hash chains don't have fixed capacity limits, this never leads to a dead end.
  • When realloc() is called, the strtable size, mask, etc must be valid so that any strings interned/freed by side effects can be handled normally without being aware of the resize. For example, when shrinking, the buckets must first be combined, and the strtable size, mask, etc updated before the realloc() call is made.

Zero-way linking, single linking, and double linking

Zero-way linking was used up to Duktape 2.0: duk_hstring itself doesn't contain any link pointers. For a hash+probe approach this is fine because strings don't need any linking: they are in the hash table as is. For a hash+chain approach Duktape 2.0 used separate allocations for lists of string pointers.

Single linking means a duk_hstring has only a "next" pointer; double linking means a string also has a "prev" pointer which means more pointer manipulation but makes some operations (e.g. random string unlinking) easier.

Upsides of double linking:

  • Unlinking doesn't require scanning to find the previous element, so that both insert and remove are O(1).

Downsides of double linking:

  • One more pointer per duk_hstring, more memory usage.
  • More pointer manipulation because both directions of the list need managing.

Upsides of single linking:

  • Only a single link pointer, less memory usage.
  • Less pointer manipulation.

Downsides of single linking:

  • Unlinking by refcount requires scanning from the hash chain root, so that the previous string can be located and its 'next' pointer updated which makes removal slower. However, it's only a significant issue if the average chain length is high, so resizing the top level strtable array should minimize the issue. For low memory targets with a fixed top level strtable array this may be a more concrete issue; however, the number of strings there is also limited by memory.

In Duktape 2.1 a single linked duk_hstring is used. On average, the cost of scanning in removal is offset by less pointer manipulation in inserts. This holds at least when the load factor is small (say <= 2.0).

Delayed freeing

While refcounts can be used to free strings immediately, it would also be easy to delay string freeing to the mark-and-sweep pass. This would even allow the refcount field to be dropped from strings (which would need adjustment to refcount macros).

The upside of delaying string freeing is that if a string is repeatedly created and then forgotten, the interned string which is otherwise unreachable can be reused.

While not very common, this happens in some algorithms repeatedly; for example when using a string as a "lookup table":

var nybbles = "0123456789abcdef";
var res = '';  // inefficient concatenation for simplicity

for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
    res += nybbles[inp[i] >> 4];
    res += nybbles[inp[i] & 0x0f];

Here each lookup creates a one-character substring which is interned, appended to res, and then freed (unless a reference exists elsewhere).

For low memory targets delayed freeing would be nice because it reduces the string header size by the refcount field. The downside is that the refcount macros need adjustment: not all heaphdr refcount operations are the same. Memory usage would also be less snappy.

Other changes in Duktape 2.1

External string handling

External strings are always supported by string table code in Duktape 2.0 but only created when some external string macros are enabled. The duk_hstring accessor macros only support external strings when DUK_USE_HSTRING_EXTDATA is enabled. Revise this behavior:

  • Disable external string checks also in string intern code if external string support macros are not enabled.

For future consideration:

  • External string support might be enabled in the public C API because it's quite useful for things like memory mapped source files.
  • When not pressed for RAM, add an explicit string pointer to the standard header so that string data access doesn't need a flag check at every turn.

Future work

Header definition

In Duktape 2.0 duk_hstring header starts with a duk_heaphdr and is then followed by further fields. If duk_heaphdr is not naturally aligned this introduces unnecessary padding inside the struct.

Change so that shared duk_heaphdr fields are provided by a macro which can be called in duk_hstring definition. This also simplifies field access, e.g. h_str->hdr.h_next can be written as h_str->h_next.

Raising a looked up string to top of hash chain

When an intern check is done and the string is already present in the string table, the string could be "bubbled" to the top of the hash table chain when found. If application code recreates the same string (or set of strings) many times over, this would make further lookups faster. This could happen e.g. when a string is used as a "lookup table" and the same substrings are looked up over and over.

In practical testing this technique did improve some individual tests, it didn't have a net positive effect. The added shuffling for every intern check seems to nullify the potential (rare) benefits.

ROM strings don't need a h_next field. It could be used for string data, provided that both arridx and clen have been dropped so that the duk_hstring struct itself is actually empty. This does need a change to duk_hstring_get_data() accessor though.

Remove heap->st_size field

Because heap->st_size is always equal to heap->st_mask + 1 (except during heap init) the explicit heap->st_size field can be removed which reduces book-keeping.