d_heap 0.2.0 → 0.5.0

checksums.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 SHA256:
-  metadata.gz: c8c06927edbc903bc67c3f52bf6d7027a1c9b04d7860acc712a29b4298fd7adf
-  data.tar.gz: e347372e483f9d2b46deb5ad78cc6eb4ab9f28a427853e01282f035abdf475b7
+  metadata.gz: 3dd1049e0a8041a328da4ed65622c2f0589475bc386a0eb6f20e466c79587bc5
+  data.tar.gz: ec44970feaa5ce6aef37f511e71e55342ec93b7e1a0b2a3d40f249afa4e9ac25
 SHA512:
-  metadata.gz: 124b615e62c6f6e58b3f8ff55bd7471f99960eab5e937dc40354f067112750fbebdcb0540585ec615d1d713f005fc40d2840a9b6ff4c9b6e6f62dcf374f56d9c
-  data.tar.gz: 391af9443b13e0902a813cfb9712fdf98ea414d27d9406348ef25aa5ec03a47488b7c2bbbf066bbbfe50e69f04fec95413eb705c5c45c5185172c5b63777c059
+  metadata.gz: a6b6e192dbe5980b2b79728e4b4bf413151b3e193733d1435119482edb977f0a2edd692fd156614fdfbc86f4fa1dc6ac9f7907ca640c21ca23050d07b9a1caa6
+  data.tar.gz: 27a987139a1fd14f73c16459f72be2bf1059dadbd212e250a28b3691dff2372e708cdf740155e2d2aa21de78cc789816a9d83f80f42d3c396510cd6fce6e6bf2

data/.github/workflows/main.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+name: Ruby
+
+on: [push,pull_request]
+
+jobs:
+  build:
+    strategy:
+      fail-fast: false
+      matrix:
+        ruby: [2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.0]
+        os: [ubuntu, macos]
+        experimental: [false]
+    runs-on: ${{ matrix.os }}-latest
+    continue-on-error: ${{ matrix.experimental }}
+    steps:
+    - uses: actions/checkout@v2
+    - name: Set up Ruby
+      uses: ruby/setup-ruby@v1
+      with:
+        ruby-version: ${{ matrix.ruby }}
+        bundler-cache: true
+    - name: Run the default task
+      run: |
+        gem install bundler -v 2.2.3
+        bundle install
+        bundle exec rake

data/.rubocop.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
+inherit_mode:
+  merge:
+    - Exclude
+
+AllCops:
+  TargetRubyVersion: 2.5
+  NewCops: disable
+  Exclude:
+    - bin/benchmark-driver
+    - bin/rake
+    - bin/rspec
+    - bin/rubocop
+
+###########################################################################
+# rubocop defaults are simply WRONG about many rules... Sorry. It's true.
+
+###########################################################################
+# Layout: Alignment.  I want these to work, I really do...
+
+# I wish this worked with "table". but that goes wrong sometimes.
+Layout/HashAlignment: { Enabled: false }
+
+# This needs to be configurable so parenthesis calls are aligned with first
+# parameter, and non-parenthesis calls are aligned with fixed indentation.
+Layout/ParameterAlignment: { Enabled: false }
+
+###########################################################################
+# Layout: Empty lines
+
+Layout/EmptyLineAfterGuardClause:                 { Enabled: false }
+Layout/EmptyLineAfterMagicComment:                { Enabled: true }
+Layout/EmptyLineAfterMultilineCondition:          { Enabled: false }
+Layout/EmptyLines:                                { Enabled: true }
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundAccessModifier:            { Enabled: true }
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundArguments:                 { Enabled: true }
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundBeginBody:                 { Enabled: true }
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundBlockBody:                 { Enabled: false }
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundExceptionHandlingKeywords: { Enabled: true }
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundMethodBody:                { Enabled: true }
+
+Layout/EmptyLineBetweenDefs:
+  Enabled: true
+  AllowAdjacentOneLineDefs: true
+
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundAttributeAccessor:
+  inherit_mode:
+    merge:
+      - Exclude
+      - AllowedMethods
+  Enabled: true
+  AllowedMethods:
+    - delegate
+    - def_delegator
+    - def_delegators
+    - def_instance_delegators
+
+# "empty_lines_special" sometimes does the wrong thing and annoys me.
+# But I've mostly learned to live with it... mostly. 🙁
+
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundClassBody:
+  Enabled: true
+  EnforcedStyle: empty_lines_special
+
+Layout/EmptyLinesAroundModuleBody:
+  Enabled: true
+  EnforcedStyle: empty_lines_special
+
+###########################################################################
+# Layout: Space around, before, inside, etc
+
+Layout/SpaceAroundEqualsInParameterDefault: { Enabled: false }
+Layout/SpaceBeforeBlockBraces:              { Enabled: false }
+Layout/SpaceBeforeFirstArg:                 { Enabled: false }
+Layout/SpaceInLambdaLiteral:                { Enabled: false }
+Layout/SpaceInsideArrayLiteralBrackets:     { Enabled: false }
+Layout/SpaceInsideHashLiteralBraces:        { Enabled: false }
+
+Layout/SpaceInsideBlockBraces:
+  EnforcedStyle: space
+  EnforcedStyleForEmptyBraces: space
+  SpaceBeforeBlockParameters: false
+
+# I would enable this if it were a bit better at handling alignment.
+Layout/ExtraSpacing:
+  Enabled: false
+  AllowForAlignment: true
+  AllowBeforeTrailingComments: true
+
+###########################################################################
+# Layout: Misc
+
+Layout/LineLength:
+  Max: 90 # should stay under 80, but we'll allow a little wiggle-room
+
+Layout/MultilineOperationIndentation: { Enabled: false }
+
+Layout/MultilineMethodCallIndentation:
+  EnforcedStyle: indented
+
+###########################################################################
+# Lint and Naming: rubocop defaults are mostly good, but...
+
+Lint/UnusedMethodArgument: { Enabled: false }
+Naming/BinaryOperatorParameterName: { Enabled: false } # def /(denominator)
+Naming/RescuedExceptionsVariableName: { Enabled: false }
+
+###########################################################################
+# Matrics:
+
+Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity:
+  Max: 10
+
+# Although it may be better to split specs into multiple files...?
+Metrics/BlockLength:
+  Exclude:
+    - "spec/**/*_spec.rb"
+  CountAsOne:
+    - array
+    - hash
+    - heredoc
+
+Metrics/ClassLength:
+  Max: 200
+  CountAsOne:
+    - array
+    - hash
+    - heredoc
+
+###########################################################################
+# Style...
+
+Style/AccessorGrouping:        { Enabled: false }
+Style/AsciiComments:           { Enabled: false } # 👮 can't stop our 🎉🥳🎊🥳!
+Style/ClassAndModuleChildren:  { Enabled: false }
+Style/EachWithObject:          { Enabled: false }
+Style/FormatStringToken:       { Enabled: false }
+Style/FloatDivision:           { Enabled: false }
+Style/IfUnlessModifier:        { Enabled: false }
+Style/IfWithSemicolon:         { Enabled: false }
+Style/Lambda:                  { Enabled: false }
+Style/LineEndConcatenation:    { Enabled: false }
+Style/MixinGrouping:           { Enabled: false }
+Style/MultilineBlockChain:     { Enabled: false }
+Style/PerlBackrefs:            { Enabled: false } # use occasionally/sparingly
+Style/RescueStandardError:     { Enabled: false }
+Style/Semicolon:               { Enabled: false }
+Style/SingleLineMethods:       { Enabled: false }
+Style/StabbyLambdaParentheses: { Enabled: false }
+Style/WhenThen               : { Enabled: false }
+
+# I require trailing commas elsewhere, but these are optional
+Style/TrailingCommaInArguments: { Enabled: false }
+
+# If rubocop had an option to only enforce this on constants and literals (e.g.
+# strings, regexp, range), I'd agree.
+#
+# But if you are using it e.g. on method arguments of unknown type, in the same
+# style that ruby uses it with grep, then you are doing exactly the right thing.
+Style/CaseEquality: { Enabled: false }
+
+# I'd enable if "require_parentheses_when_complex" considered unary '!' simple.
+Style/TernaryParentheses:
+  EnforcedStyle: require_parentheses_when_complex
+  Enabled: false
+
+Style/BlockDelimiters:
+  inherit_mode:
+    merge:
+      - Exclude
+      - ProceduralMethods
+      - IgnoredMethods
+      - FunctionalMethods
+  EnforcedStyle: semantic
+  AllowBracesOnProceduralOneLiners: true
+  IgnoredMethods:
+    - expect  # rspec
+    - profile # ruby-prof
+    - ips     # benchmark-ips
+
+
+Style/FormatString:
+  EnforcedStyle: percent
+
+Style/StringLiterals:
+  Enabled: true
+  EnforcedStyle: double_quotes
+
+Style/StringLiteralsInInterpolation:
+  Enabled: true
+  EnforcedStyle: double_quotes
+
+Style/TrailingCommaInHashLiteral:
+  EnforcedStyleForMultiline: consistent_comma
+
+Style/TrailingCommaInArrayLiteral:
+  EnforcedStyleForMultiline: consistent_comma
+
+Style/YodaCondition:
+  EnforcedStyle: forbid_for_equality_operators_only

data/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+## Current/Unreleased
+
+## Release v0.5.0 (2021-01-17)
+
+* 🔥 **Breaking**: reversed order of `#push` arguments to `value, score`.
+* ✨ Added `#insert(score, value)` to replace earlier version of `#push`.
+* ✨ Added `#each_pop` enumerator.
+* ✨ Added aliases for `deq`, `enq`, `first`, `pop_below`, `length`, and
+    `count`, to mimic other classes in ruby's stdlib.
+* ⚡️♻️  More performance improvements:
+  * Created an `ENTRY` struct and store both the score and the value pointer in
+    the same `ENTRY *entries` array.
+  * Reduced unnecessary allocations or copies in both sift loops.  A similar
+    refactoring also sped up the pure ruby benchmark implementation.
+  * Compiling with `-O3`.
+* 📝 Updated (and in some cases, fixed) yardoc
+* ♻️  Moved aliases and less performance sensitive code into ruby.
+* ♻️  DRY up push/insert methods
+
+## Release v0.4.0 (2021-01-12)
+
+* ⚡️ Big performance improvements, by using C `long double *cscores` array
+* ⚡️ Scores must be `Integer` in `-uint64..+uint64`, or convertable to `Float`
+* ⚡️ many many (so many) updates to benchmarks
+* ✨ Added `DHeap#clear`
+* 🐛 Fixed `DHeap#initialize_copy` and `#freeze`
+* ♻️  significant refactoring
+* 📝 Updated docs (mostly adding benchmarks)
+
+## Release v0.3.0 (2020-12-29)
+
+* 🔥 **Breaking**: Removed class methods that operated directly on an array.
+    They weren't compatible with the performance improvements.
+* ⚡️ Big performance improvements, by converting to a `T_DATA` struct.
+* ♻️  Major refactoring/rewriting of dheap.c
+* ✅ Added benchmark specs
+
+## Release v0.2.2 (2020-12-27)
+
+* 🐛 fix `optimized_cmp`, avoiding internal symbols
+* 📝 Update documentation
+* 💚 fix macos CI
+* ➕ Add rubocop 👮🎨
+
+## Release v0.2.1 (2020-12-26)
+
+* ⬆️  Upgraded rake (and bundler) to support ruby 3.0
+
+## Release v0.2.0 (2020-12-24)
+
+* ✨ Add ability to push separate score and value
+* ⚡️ Big performance gain, by storing scores separately and using ruby's
+  internal `OPTIMIZED_CMP` instead of always directly calling `<=>`
+
+## Release v0.1.0 (2020-12-22)
+
+🎉 initial release 🎉
+
+* ✨ Add basic d-ary Heap implementation

data/Gemfile

@@ -1,8 +1,16 @@
+# frozen_string_literal: true
+
 source "https://rubygems.org"
 
 # Specify your gem's dependencies in d_heap.gemspec
 gemspec
 
-gem "rake", "~> 12.0"
+gem "pry"
+gem "rake", "~> 13.0"
 gem "rake-compiler"
-gem "rspec", "~> 3.0"
+gem "rspec", "~> 3.10"
+gem "rubocop", "~> 1.0"
+
+gem "perf"
+gem "priority_queue_cxx"
+gem "stackprof"

data/Gemfile.lock

@@ -1,15 +1,30 @@
 PATH
   remote: .
   specs:
-    d_heap (0.2.0)
+    d_heap (0.5.0)
 
 GEM
   remote: https://rubygems.org/
   specs:
+    ast (2.4.1)
+    benchmark_driver (0.15.16)
+    coderay (1.1.3)
     diff-lcs (1.4.4)
-    rake (12.3.3)
+    method_source (1.0.0)
+    parallel (1.19.2)
+    parser (2.7.2.0)
+      ast (~> 2.4.1)
+    perf (0.1.2)
+    priority_queue_cxx (0.3.4)
+    pry (0.13.1)
+      coderay (~> 1.1)
+      method_source (~> 1.0)
+    rainbow (3.0.0)
+    rake (13.0.3)
     rake-compiler (1.1.1)
       rake
+    regexp_parser (1.8.2)
+    rexml (3.2.3)
     rspec (3.10.0)
       rspec-core (~> 3.10.0)
       rspec-expectations (~> 3.10.0)
@@ -23,15 +38,37 @@ GEM
       diff-lcs (>= 1.2.0, < 2.0)
       rspec-support (~> 3.10.0)
     rspec-support (3.10.0)
+    rubocop (1.2.0)
+      parallel (~> 1.10)
+      parser (>= 2.7.1.5)
+      rainbow (>= 2.2.2, < 4.0)
+      regexp_parser (>= 1.8)
+      rexml
+      rubocop-ast (>= 1.0.1)
+      ruby-progressbar (~> 1.7)
+      unicode-display_width (>= 1.4.0, < 2.0)
+    rubocop-ast (1.1.1)
+      parser (>= 2.7.1.5)
+    ruby-prof (1.4.2)
+    ruby-progressbar (1.10.1)
+    stackprof (0.2.16)
+    unicode-display_width (1.7.0)
 
 PLATFORMS
   ruby
 
 DEPENDENCIES
+  benchmark_driver
   d_heap!
-  rake (~> 12.0)
+  perf
+  priority_queue_cxx
+  pry
+  rake (~> 13.0)
   rake-compiler
-  rspec (~> 3.0)
+  rspec (~> 3.10)
+  rubocop (~> 1.0)
+  ruby-prof
+  stackprof
 
 BUNDLED WITH
-   2.1.4
+   2.2.3

data/README.md

@@ -1,139 +1,390 @@
 # DHeap
 
-A fast _d_-ary heap implementation for ruby, useful in priority queues and graph
-algorithms.
-
-The _d_-ary heap data structure is a generalization of the binary heap, in which
-the nodes have _d_ children instead of 2.  This allows for "decrease priority"
-operations to be performed more quickly with the tradeoff of slower delete
-minimum.  Additionally, _d_-ary heaps can have better memory cache behavior than
-binary heaps, allowing them to run more quickly in practice despite slower
-worst-case time complexity.
-
-_TODO:_ In addition to a basic _d_-ary heap class (`DHeap`), this library
-~~includes~~ _will include_ extensions to `Array`, allowing an Array to be
-directly handled as a priority queue.  These extension methods are meant to be
-used similarly to how `#bsearch` and `#bsearch_index` might be used.
-
-_TODO:_ Also included is `DHeap::Set`, which augments the basic heap with an
-internal `Hash`, which maps a set of values to scores.
-loosely inspired by go's timers.  e.g: It lazily sifts its heap after deletion
-and adjustments, to achieve faster average runtime for *add* and *cancel*
-operations.
+A fast [_d_-ary heap][d-ary heap] [priority queue] implementation for ruby,
+implemented as a C extension.
+
+With a regular queue, you expect "FIFO" behavior: first in, first out.  With a
+stack you expect "LIFO": last in first out.  A priority queue has a score for
+each element and elements are popped in order by score.  Priority queues are
+often used in algorithms for e.g. [scheduling] of timers or bandwidth
+management, for [Huffman coding], and various graph search algorithms such as
+[Dijkstra's algorithm], [A* search], or [Prim's algorithm].
+
+The _d_-ary heap data structure is a generalization of the [binary heap], in
+which the nodes have _d_ children instead of 2.  This allows for "insert" and
+"decrease priority" operations to be performed more quickly with the tradeoff of
+slower delete minimum.  Additionally, _d_-ary heaps can have better memory cache
+behavior than binary heaps, allowing them to run more quickly in practice
+despite slower worst-case time complexity. In the worst case, a _d_-ary heap
+requires only `O(log n / log d)` operations to push, with the tradeoff that pop
+requires `O(d log n / log d)`.
+
+Although you should probably just use the default _d_ value  of `4` (see the
+analysis below), it's always advisable to benchmark your specific use-case.
+
+[d-ary heap]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-ary_heap
+[priority queue]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_queue
+[binary heap]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_heap
+[scheduling]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling_(computing)
+[Huffman coding]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding#Compression
+[Dijkstra's algorithm]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm#Using_a_priority_queue
+[A* search]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm#Description
+[Prim's algorithm]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prim%27s_algorithm
 
-_TODO:_ Also included is `DHeap::Timers`, which contains some features that are
-loosely inspired by go's timers.  e.g: It lazily sifts its heap after deletion
-and adjustments, to achieve faster average runtime for *add* and *cancel*
-operations.
+## Usage
 
-## Motivation
+Quick reference:
 
-Ruby's Array class comes with some helpful methods for maintaining a sorted
-array, by combining `#bsearch_index` with `#insert`.  With certain insert/remove
-workloads that can perform very well, but in the worst-case an insert or delete
-can result in O(n), since it may need to memcopy a significant portion of the
-array.  Knowing that priority queues are usually implemented with a heap, and
-that the heap is a relatively simple data structure, I set out to replace my
-`#bsearch_index` and `#insert` code with a one.  I was surprised to find that,
-at least under certain benchmarks, my ruby Heap implementation was tied with or
-slower than inserting into a fully sorted array.  On the one hand, this is a
-testament to ruby's fine-tuned Array implementation.  On the other hand, it
-seemed like a heap implementated in C should easily match the speed of ruby's
-bsearch + insert.
+* `heap << object` adds a value, with `Float(object)` as its score.
+* `heap.push(object, score)` adds a value with an extrinsic score.
+* `heap.pop` removes and returns the value with the minimum score.
+* `heap.pop_lte(score)` pops if the minimum score is `<=` the provided score.
+* `heap.peek` to view the minimum value without popping it.
+* `heap.clear` to remove all items from the heap.
+* `heap.empty?` returns true if the heap is empty.
+* `heap.size` returns the number of items in the heap.
 
-Additionally, I was inspired by reading go's "timer.go" implementation to
-experiment with a 4-ary heap, instead of the traditional binary heap.  In the
-case of timers, new timers are usually scheduled to run after most of the
-existing timers and timers are usually canceled before they have a chance to
-run. While a binary heap holds 50% of its elements in its last layer, 75% of a
-4-ary heap will have no children.  That diminishes the extra comparison
-overhead during sift-down.
+The basic API is `#push(object, score)` and `pop`.  If your values behave as
+their own score, then you can push with `#<<`.  If the score changes while the
+object is still in the heap, it will not be re-evaluated again.  The score must
+either be `Integer` or `Float` or convertable to a `Float` via `Float(score)`
+(i.e. it should implement `#to_f`).
 
-## Installation
+```ruby
+require "d_heap"
 
-Add this line to your application's Gemfile:
+Task = Struct.new(:id, :time) do
+  def to_f; time.to_f end
+end
+t1 = Task.new(1, Time.now + 5*60)
+t2 = Task.new(2, Time.now + 50)
+t3 = Task.new(3, Time.now + 60)
+t4 = Task.new(4, Time.now +  5)
+
+# if the object returns its own score via #to_f, "<<" is the simplest API
+heap << t1 << t2
+
+# or push with an explicit score
+heap.push t3, t4.to_f
+heap.push t4, t4 # score can be implicitly cast with Float
+
+# peek and pop
+heap.pop    # => #<struct Task id=4, time=2021-01-17 17:02:22.5574 -0500>
+heap.pop    # => #<struct Task id=2, time=2021-01-17 17:03:07.5574 -0500>
+heap.peek   # => #<struct Task id=3, time=2021-01-17 17:03:17.5574 -0500>
+heap.pop    # => #<struct Task id=3, time=2021-01-17 17:03:17.5574 -0500>
+heap.pop    # => #<struct Task id=1, time=2021-01-17 17:07:17.5574 -0500>
+heap.empty? # => true
+heap.pop    # => nil
+```
+
+Constraining scores to numeric values gives more than 50% speedup under some
+benchmarks!  _n.b._ `Integer` _scores must have an absolute value that fits
+into_ `unsigned long long`. _This is architecture dependant but on an IA-64
+system this is 64 bits, which gives a range of -18,446,744,073,709,551,615 to
++18446744073709551615.  Comparing arbitary objects via_ `a <=> b` _was the
+original design and may be added back in a future version,_ if (and only if) _it
+can be done without impacting the speed of numeric comparisons._
 
 ```ruby
-gem 'd_heap'
+heap.clear
+
+# The score can be derived from the value by using to_f.
+# "a <=> b" is *much* slower than comparing numbers, so it isn't used.
+class Event
+  include Comparable
+  attr_reader :time, :payload
+  alias_method :to_time, :time
+
+  def initialize(time, payload)
+    @time = time.to_time
+    @payload = payload
+    freeze
+  end
+
+  def to_f
+    time.to_f
+  end
+
+  def <=>(other)
+    to_f <=> other.to_f
+  end
+end
+
+heap << comparable_max # sorts last, using <=>
+heap << comparable_min # sorts first, using <=>
+heap << comparable_mid # sorts in the middle, using <=>
+heap.pop    # => comparable_min
+heap.pop    # => comparable_mid
+heap.pop    # => comparable_max
+heap.empty? # => true
+heap.pop    # => nil
 ```
 
-And then execute:
+You can also pass a value into `#pop(max)` which will only pop if the minimum
+score is less than or equal to `max`.
 
-    $ bundle install
-
-Or install it yourself as:
+Read the [API documentation] for more detailed documentation and examples.
 
-    $ gem install d_heap
+[API documentation]: https://rubydoc.info/gems/d_heap/DHeap
 
-## Usage
+## Installation
 
-The simplest way to use it is simply with `#push` and `#pop`.  Push will 
+Add this line to your application's Gemfile:
 
 ```ruby
-require "d_heap"
+gem 'd_heap'
+```
 
-heap = DHeap.new # defaults to a 4-ary heap
+And then execute:
 
-# storing [time, task] tuples
-heap << [Time.now + 5*60, Task.new(1)]
-heap << [Time.now +   30, Task.new(2)]
-heap << [Time.now +   60, Task.new(3)]
-heap << [Time.now +    5, Task.new(4)]
+    $ bundle install
 
-# peeking and popping (using last to get the task and ignore the time)
-heap.pop.last # => Task[4]
-heap.pop.last # => Task[2]
-heap.peak.last # => Task[3]
-heap.pop.last # => Task[3]
-heap.pop.last # => Task[1]
-```
+Or install it yourself as:
 
-Read the `rdoc` for more detailed documentation and examples.
+    $ gem install d_heap
 
-## Benchmarks
+## Motivation
 
-_TODO: put benchmarks here._
+One naive approach to a priority queue is to maintain an array in sorted order.
+This can be very simply implemented in ruby with `Array#bseach_index` +
+`Array#insert`.  This can be very fast—`Array#pop` is `O(1)`—but the worst-case
+for insert is `O(n)` because it may need to `memcpy` a significant portion of
+the array.
+
+The standard way to implement a priority queue is with a binary heap.  Although
+this increases the time for `pop`, it converts the amortized time per push + pop
+from `O(n)` to `O(d log n / log d)`.
+
+However, I was surprised to find that—at least for some benchmarks—my pure ruby
+heap implementation was much slower than inserting into and popping from a fully
+sorted array.  The reasons for this surprising result: Although it is `O(n)`,
+`memcpy` has a _very_ small constant factor, and calling `<=>` from ruby code
+has relatively _much_ larger constant factors.  If your queue contains only a
+few thousand items, the overhead of those extra calls to `<=>` is _far_ more
+than occasionally calling `memcpy`.  In the worst case, a _d_-heap will require
+`d + 1` times more comparisons for each push + pop than a `bsearch` + `insert`
+sorted array.
+
+Moving the sift-up and sift-down code into C helps some.  But much more helpful
+is optimizing the comparison of numeric scores, so `a <=> b` never needs to be
+called.  I'm hopeful that MJIT will eventually obsolete this C-extension.  This
+can be hotspot code, and a basic ruby implementation could perform well if `<=>`
+had much lower overhead.
 
 ## Analysis
 
 ### Time complexity
 
-Both sift operations can perform (log[d] n = log n / log d) swaps.
-Swap up performs only a single comparison per swap: O(1).
-Swap down performs as many as d comparions per swap: O(d).
+There are two fundamental heap operations: sift-up (used by push) and sift-down
+(used by pop).
 
-Inserting an item is O(log n / log d).
-Deleting the root is O(d log n / log d).
+* Both sift operations can perform as many as `log n / log d` swaps, as the
+  element may sift from the bottom of the tree to the top, or vice versa.
+* Sift-up performs a single comparison per swap: `O(1)`.
+  So pushing a new element is `O(log n / log d)`.
+* Swap down performs as many as d comparions per swap: `O(d)`.
+  So popping the min element is `O(d log n / log d)`.
 
-Assuming every inserted item is eventually deleted from the root, d=4 requires
-the fewest comparisons for combined insert and delete:
- * (1 + 2) lg 2 = 4.328085
- * (1 + 3) lg 3 = 3.640957
- * (1 + 4) lg 4 = 3.606738
- * (1 + 5) lg 5 = 3.728010
- * (1 + 6) lg 6 = 3.906774
- * etc...
+Assuming every inserted element is eventually deleted from the root, d=4
+requires the fewest comparisons for combined insert and delete:
+
+* (1 + 2) lg 2 = 4.328085
+* (1 + 3) lg 3 = 3.640957
+* (1 + 4) lg 4 = 3.606738
+* (1 + 5) lg 5 = 3.728010
+* (1 + 6) lg 6 = 3.906774
+* etc...
 
 Leaf nodes require no comparisons to shift down, and higher values for d have
 higher percentage of leaf nodes:
- * d=2 has ~50% leaves,
- * d=3 has ~67% leaves,
- * d=4 has ~75% leaves,
- * and so on...
+
+* d=2 has ~50% leaves,
+* d=3 has ~67% leaves,
+* d=4 has ~75% leaves,
+* and so on...
 
 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-ary_heap#Analysis for deeper analysis.
 
 ### Space complexity
 
-Because the heap is a complete binary tree, space usage is linear, regardless
-of d.  However higher d values may provide better cache locality.
+Space usage is linear, regardless of d.  However higher d values may
+provide better cache locality.  Because the heap is a complete binary tree, the
+elements can be stored in an array, without the need for tree or list pointers.
 
-We can run comparisons much much faster for Numeric or String objects than for
-ruby objects which delegate comparison to internal Numeric or String objects.
-And it is often advantageous to use extrinsic scores for uncomparable items.
-For this, our internal array uses twice as many entries (one for score and one
-for value) as it would if it only supported intrinsic comparison or used an
-un-memoized "sort_by" proc.
+Ruby can compare Numeric values _much_ faster than other ruby objects, even if
+those objects simply delegate comparison to internal Numeric values.  And it is
+often useful to use external scores for otherwise uncomparable values.  So
+`DHeap` uses twice as many entries (one for score and one for value)
+as an array which only stores values.
+
+## Benchmarks
+
+_See `bin/benchmarks` and `docs/benchmarks.txt`, as well as `bin/profile` and
+`docs/profile.txt` for more details or updated results. These benchmarks were
+measured with v0.5.0 and ruby 2.7.2 without MJIT enabled._
+
+These benchmarks use very simple implementations for a pure-ruby heap and an
+array that is kept sorted using `Array#bsearch_index` and `Array#insert`.  For
+comparison, an alternate implementation `Array#min` and `Array#delete_at` is
+also shown.
+
+Three different scenarios are measured:
+ * push N values but never pop (clearing between each set of pushes).
+ * push N values and then pop N values.
+   Although this could be used for heap sort, we're unlikely to choose heap sort
+   over Ruby's quick sort implementation. I'm using this scenario to represent
+   the amortized cost of creating a heap and (eventually) draining it.
+ * For a heap of size N, repeatedly push and pop while keeping a stable size.
+   This is a _very simple_ approximation for how most scheduler/timer heaps
+   would be used. Usually when a timer fires it will be quickly replaced by a
+   new timer, and the overall count of timers will remain roughly stable.
+
+In these benchmarks, `DHeap` runs faster than all other implementations for
+every scenario and every value of N, although the difference is much more
+noticable at higher values of N.  The pure ruby heap implementation is
+competitive for `push` alone at every value of N, but is significantly slower
+than bsearch + insert for push + pop until N is _very_ large (somewhere between
+10k and 100k)!
+
+For very small N values the benchmark implementations,  `DHeap` runs faster than
+the other implementations for each scenario, although the difference is still
+relatively small.  The pure ruby binary heap is 2x or more slower than bsearch +
+insert for common common push/pop scenario.
+
+    == push N (N=5) ==========================================================
+    push N (c_dheap):   1969700.7 i/s
+    push N (c++ stl):   1049738.1 i/s - 1.88x  slower
+    push N (rb_heap):    928435.2 i/s - 2.12x  slower
+    push N (bsearch):    921060.0 i/s - 2.14x  slower
+
+    == push N then pop N (N=5) ===============================================
+    push N + pop N (c_dheap):   1375805.0 i/s
+    push N + pop N (c++ stl):   1134997.5 i/s - 1.21x  slower
+    push N + pop N (findmin):    862913.1 i/s - 1.59x  slower
+    push N + pop N (bsearch):    762887.1 i/s - 1.80x  slower
+    push N + pop N (rb_heap):    506890.4 i/s - 2.71x  slower
+
+    == Push/pop with pre-filled queue of size=N (N=5) ========================
+    push + pop (c_dheap):   9044435.5 i/s
+    push + pop (c++ stl):   7534583.4 i/s - 1.20x  slower
+    push + pop (findmin):   5026155.1 i/s - 1.80x  slower
+    push + pop (bsearch):   4300260.0 i/s - 2.10x  slower
+    push + pop (rb_heap):   2299499.7 i/s - 3.93x  slower
+
+By N=21, `DHeap` has pulled significantly ahead of bsearch + insert for all
+scenarios, but the pure ruby heap is still slower than every other
+implementation—even resorting the array after every `#push`—in any scenario that
+uses `#pop`.
+
+    == push N (N=21) =========================================================
+    push N (c_dheap):    464231.4 i/s
+    push N (c++ stl):    305546.7 i/s - 1.52x  slower
+    push N (rb_heap):    202803.7 i/s - 2.29x  slower
+    push N (bsearch):    168678.7 i/s - 2.75x  slower
+
+    == push N then pop N (N=21) ==============================================
+    push N + pop N (c_dheap):    298350.3 i/s
+    push N + pop N (c++ stl):    252227.1 i/s - 1.18x  slower
+    push N + pop N (findmin):    161998.7 i/s - 1.84x  slower
+    push N + pop N (bsearch):    143432.3 i/s - 2.08x  slower
+    push N + pop N (rb_heap):     79622.1 i/s - 3.75x  slower
+
+    == Push/pop with pre-filled queue of size=N (N=21) =======================
+    push + pop (c_dheap):   8855093.4 i/s
+    push + pop (c++ stl):   7223079.5 i/s - 1.23x  slower
+    push + pop (findmin):   4542913.7 i/s - 1.95x  slower
+    push + pop (bsearch):   3461802.4 i/s - 2.56x  slower
+    push + pop (rb_heap):   1845488.7 i/s - 4.80x  slower
+
+At higher values of N, a heaps logarithmic growth leads to only a little
+slowdown of `#push`, while insert's linear growth causes it to run noticably
+slower and slower.  But because `#pop` is `O(1)` for a sorted array and `O(d log
+n / log d)` for a heap, scenarios involving both `#push` and `#pop` remain
+relatively close, and bsearch + insert still runs faster than a pure ruby heap,
+even up to queues with 10k items.  But as queue size increases beyond than that,
+the linear time compexity to keep a sorted array dominates.
+
+    == push + pop (rb_heap)
+    queue size =    10000:    736618.2 i/s
+    queue size =    25000:    670186.8 i/s - 1.10x  slower
+    queue size =    50000:    618156.7 i/s - 1.19x  slower
+    queue size =   100000:    579250.7 i/s - 1.27x  slower
+    queue size =   250000:    572795.0 i/s - 1.29x  slower
+    queue size =   500000:    543648.3 i/s - 1.35x  slower
+    queue size =  1000000:    513523.4 i/s - 1.43x  slower
+    queue size =  2500000:    460848.9 i/s - 1.60x  slower
+    queue size =  5000000:    445234.5 i/s - 1.65x  slower
+    queue size = 10000000:    423119.0 i/s - 1.74x  slower
+
+    == push + pop (bsearch)
+    queue size =    10000:    786334.2 i/s
+    queue size =    25000:    364963.8 i/s - 2.15x  slower
+    queue size =    50000:    200520.6 i/s - 3.92x  slower
+    queue size =   100000:     88607.0 i/s - 8.87x  slower
+    queue size =   250000:     34530.5 i/s - 22.77x  slower
+    queue size =   500000:     17965.4 i/s - 43.77x  slower
+    queue size =  1000000:      5638.7 i/s - 139.45x  slower
+    queue size =  2500000:      1302.0 i/s - 603.93x  slower
+    queue size =  5000000:       592.0 i/s - 1328.25x  slower
+    queue size = 10000000:       288.8 i/s - 2722.66x  slower
+
+    == push + pop (c_dheap)
+    queue size =    10000:   7311366.6 i/s
+    queue size =    50000:   6737824.5 i/s - 1.09x  slower
+    queue size =    25000:   6407340.6 i/s - 1.14x  slower
+    queue size =   100000:   6254396.3 i/s - 1.17x  slower
+    queue size =   250000:   5917684.5 i/s - 1.24x  slower
+    queue size =   500000:   5126307.6 i/s - 1.43x  slower
+    queue size =  1000000:   4403494.1 i/s - 1.66x  slower
+    queue size =  2500000:   3304088.2 i/s - 2.21x  slower
+    queue size =  5000000:   2664897.7 i/s - 2.74x  slower
+    queue size = 10000000:   2137927.6 i/s - 3.42x  slower
+
+## Profiling
+
+_n.b. `Array#fetch` is reading the input data, external to heap operations.
+These benchmarks use integers for all scores, which enables significantly faster
+comparisons.  If `a <=> b` were used instead, then the difference between push
+and pop would be much larger.  And ruby's `Tracepoint` impacts these different
+implementations differently.  So we can't use these profiler results for
+comparisons between implementations.  A sampling profiler would be needed for
+more accurate relative measurements._
+
+It's informative to look at the `ruby-prof` results for a simple binary search +
+insert implementation, repeatedly pushing and popping to a large heap. In
+particular, even with 1000 members, the linear `Array#insert` is _still_ faster
+than the logarithmic `Array#bsearch_index`. At this scale, ruby comparisons are
+still (relatively) slow and `memcpy` is (relatively) quite fast!
+
+    %self      total      self      wait     child     calls  name                           location
+    34.79      2.222     2.222     0.000     0.000  1000000   Array#insert
+    32.59      2.081     2.081     0.000     0.000  1000000   Array#bsearch_index
+    12.84      6.386     0.820     0.000     5.566        1   DHeap::Benchmarks::Scenarios#repeated_push_pop d_heap/benchmarks.rb:77
+    10.38      4.966     0.663     0.000     4.303  1000000   DHeap::Benchmarks::BinarySearchAndInsert#<< d_heap/benchmarks/implementations.rb:61
+     5.38      0.468     0.343     0.000     0.125  1000000   DHeap::Benchmarks::BinarySearchAndInsert#pop d_heap/benchmarks/implementations.rb:70
+     2.06      0.132     0.132     0.000     0.000  1000000   Array#fetch
+     1.95      0.125     0.125     0.000     0.000  1000000   Array#pop
+
+Contrast this with a simplistic pure-ruby implementation of a binary heap:
+
+    %self      total      self      wait     child     calls  name                           location
+    48.52      8.487     8.118     0.000     0.369  1000000   DHeap::Benchmarks::NaiveBinaryHeap#pop d_heap/benchmarks/implementations.rb:96
+    42.94      7.310     7.184     0.000     0.126  1000000   DHeap::Benchmarks::NaiveBinaryHeap#<< d_heap/benchmarks/implementations.rb:80
+     4.80     16.732     0.803     0.000    15.929        1   DHeap::Benchmarks::Scenarios#repeated_push_pop d_heap/benchmarks.rb:77
+
+You can see that it spends almost more time in pop than it does in push.  That
+is expected behavior for a heap: although both are O(log n), pop is
+significantly more complex, and has _d_ comparisons per layer.
+
+And `DHeap` shows a similar comparison between push and pop, although it spends
+half of its time in the benchmark code (which is written in ruby):
+
+    %self      total      self      wait     child     calls  name                           location
+    43.09      1.685     0.726     0.000     0.959        1   DHeap::Benchmarks::Scenarios#repeated_push_pop d_heap/benchmarks.rb:77
+    26.05      0.439     0.439     0.000     0.000  1000000   DHeap#<<
+    23.57      0.397     0.397     0.000     0.000  1000000   DHeap#pop
+     7.29      0.123     0.123     0.000     0.000  1000000   Array#fetch
 
 ### Timers
 
@@ -151,22 +402,54 @@ faster than a delete and re-insert.
 
 ## Alternative data structures
 
+As always, you should run benchmarks with your expected scenarios to determine
+which is right.
+
 Depending on what you're doing, maintaining a sorted `Array` using
-`#bsearch_index` and `#insert` might be faster!  Although it is technically
-O(n) for insertions, the implementations for `memcpy` or `memmove` can be *very*
-fast on modern architectures.  Also, it can be faster O(n) on average, if
-insertions are usually near the end of the array.  You should run benchmarks
-with your expected scenarios to determine which is right.
+`#bsearch_index` and `#insert` might be just fine!  As discussed above, although
+it is `O(n)` for insertions, `memcpy` is so fast on modern hardware that this
+may not matter.  Also, if you can arrange for insertions to occur near the end
+of the array, that could significantly reduce the `memcpy` overhead even more.
+
+More complex heap varients, e.g. [Fibonacci heap], can allow heaps to be merged
+as well as lower amortized time.
+
+[Fibonacci heap]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_heap
 
 If it is important to be able to quickly enumerate the set or find the ranking
-of values in it, then you probably want to use a self-balancing binary search
-tree (e.g. a red-black tree) or a skip-list.
-
-A Hashed Timing Wheel or Heirarchical Timing Wheels (or some variant in that
-family of data structures) can be constructed to have effectively O(1) running
-time in most cases.  However, the implementation for that data structure is more
-complex than a heap.  If a 4-ary heap is good enough for go's timers, it should
-be suitable for many use cases.
+of values in it, then you may want to use a self-balancing binary search tree
+(e.g. a [red-black tree]) or a [skip-list].
+
+[red-black tree]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red%E2%80%93black_tree
+[skip-list]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list
+
+[Hashed and Heirarchical Timing Wheels][timing wheels] (or some variant in that
+family of data structures) can be constructed to have effectively `O(1)` running
+time in most cases.  Although the implementation for that data structure is more
+complex than a heap, it may be necessary for enormous values of N.
+
+[timing wheels]: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~nahum/w6998/papers/ton97-timing-wheels.pdf
+
+## TODOs...
+
+_TODO:_ Also ~~included is~~ _will include_ `DHeap::Set`, which augments the
+basic heap with an internal `Hash`, which maps a set of values to scores.
+loosely inspired by go's timers.  e.g: It lazily sifts its heap after deletion
+and adjustments, to achieve faster average runtime for *add* and *cancel*
+operations.
+
+_TODO:_ Also ~~included is~~ _will include_ `DHeap::Lazy`, which contains some
+features that are loosely inspired by go's timers.  e.g: It lazily sifts its
+heap after deletion and adjustments, to achieve faster average runtime for *add*
+and *cancel* operations.
+
+Additionally, I was inspired by reading go's "timer.go" implementation to
+experiment with a 4-ary heap instead of the traditional binary heap.  In the
+case of timers, new timers are usually scheduled to run after most of the
+existing timers.  And timers are usually canceled before they have a chance to
+run. While a binary heap holds 50% of its elements in its last layer, 75% of a
+4-ary heap will have no children.  That diminishes the extra comparison overhead
+during sift-down.
 
 ## Development