A little premise first: the benchmarks in this article depend closely on how things work today. The code is designed to work efficiently here and now (Elm 0.18-0.19), the evolution of the environment may change drastically the numbers, so don’t rely too much on them!

Last year I was working on an Elm project and I had to implement a fuzzy search system. There wasn’t a huge amount of data to process or special needs, so the most straightforward approach seemed to calculate edit distance directly in Elm.

The good news is that functional languages often allow to write nice implementations from mathematical definitions. In fact Levenshtein distance can be calculated as follows:

min3 n = min n >> min lev a b = case ( String.uncons a , String.uncons b ) of ( Nothing , _ ) -> String.length b ( _ , Nothing ) -> String.length a ( Just ( aHd , aTl ) , Just ( bHd , bTl ) ) -> if aHd == bHd then lev aTl bTl else min3 ( lev aTl b + 1 ) ( lev a bTl + 1 ) ( lev aTl bTl + 1 )

Bad news is this code is going be real slow. Let’s say we have two strings of length n with no characters in common, in that case the number of lev ’s recursive calls grows exponentially when n grows. It’s like a fork bomb with an exit condition: two strings of just 10 characters each will produce up to 12ॱ146ॱ178 function calls.

There are some algorithms and techniques to solve this problem efficiently, if you are interested in the topic, then A Comparison of Approximate String Matching Algorithms is probably something you want to read.

Writing an efficient Elm implementation, anyway, isn’t trivial task because we have to represent a matrix column and update its components. This is one of those cases in which we really want side effects and achieve single thread raw speed, but to write nice and portable Elm code, that benefits from all the guarantees of the language, we have to deal with immutability. It can be challenging to guess which solution is going to give best performance, the game consists in run some benchmark and try again with another approach.

At a certain point, I had a working implementation, now the questions that arise are: 1. how much data can we process and 2. how much faster would the task be in pure js.

So I chose a npm package to compute edit distance and wrote a benchmark. To draw an upper bound I assumed the process shouldn’t take more than one second to complete, otherwise we probably are blocking the main thread for too long.

As you can see the test uses two random strings: text and pattern , the distance between them - naturally - doesn’t depend on their order ( lev text pattern == lev pattern text ), but the assumption here is that pattern is shorter than text , because patternLoop isn’t tail recursive.

Since time complexity is O(length text * length pattern) the time that it takes to process a 100-chars text and 10-chars pattern should be about the same as with 10-chars text and 100-chars pattern.

Anyway, the following numbers came from this environment:

awk -F ':' '/model name/{print $2}' < /proc/cpuinfo

Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-6006U CPU @ 2.00GHz

Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-6006U CPU @ 2.00GHz uname -nrv

hp-250-g6 4.9.0-9-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.168-1+deb9u3 (2019-06-16)

hp-250-g6 4.9.0-9-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.168-1+deb9u3 (2019-06-16) node -v

v10.16.0

To process a 10ॱ000 characters text and 1ॱ000 characters pattern takes about .7s with my code and about .046s with leven.

Because of patternLoop , Elm implementation will probably cause a stack overflow when pattern exceed ~1ॱ500 characters, now if we say that text and pattern have about the same length:

the fastest Elm approach I was able to find runs about 10-20 times slower than the fastest javascript library I found you may consider Elm approach with inputs up to about 1ॱ000 characters you may want to switch to javascript with inputs up to 10ॱ000 characters you should consider another approach if you need to process more data: use a different algorithm, run it in a web worker or just move the job outside the browser

Where Elm really shines

The very first problem I had to face in this project is the lack of a String.charAt function. So the options are String.uncons or String.toList. Now, the former solution would call String.prototype.slice for every character in the string, not awesome for performance. The latter, on the other hand, would lead to a nice interface that can be used with every pair of List comparable , not just with strings.

Anyway the reason why Elm doesn’t provide a charAt function is that it’s doing some work for us behind the scenes: it handles surrogate pairs, so our code works out of the box where a pure js implementation may yield unintuitive results:

git clone git@github.com:emilianobovetti/edit-distance-benchmark.git cd edit-distance-benchmark make node

const elmApp = require ( './elm-app.js' ) . Elm . Main . init ( ) ; const leven = require ( 'leven' ) ; leven ( 'x' , '🚀' ) ; elmApp . ports . sendDistance . subscribe ( console . log ) ; elmApp . ports . calcDistance . send ( { text : 'x' , pattern : '🚀' } ) ;

In conclusion Elm seems a valid alternative to javascript even for some CPU intensive tasks. Interestingly, the time overhead is comparable to that of Array.prototype.reduce vs. for loops, a price that, in many cases, I’ll happily pay.