-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.7k
gh-101178: Add Ascii85, base85, and Z85 support to binascii #102753
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
It's a year later, and Z85 support has been added to For reference, this is the benchmark run that led me to do so. # After merging main but before adding Z85 support to this PR
(cpython-b85) $ python bench_b85.py 64
b64encode : 67108864 b in 0.121 s (527.435 MB/s) using 42.667 MB
b64decode : 89478488 b in 0.309 s (276.188 MB/s) using 56.889 MB
a85encode : 67108864 b in 0.297 s (215.150 MB/s) using 0.000 MB
a85decode : 83886080 b in 0.205 s (390.751 MB/s) using 0.000 MB
b85encode : 67108864 b in 0.106 s (604.359 MB/s) using 0.000 MB
b85decode : 83886080 b in 0.204 s (393.040 MB/s) using 0.000 MB
z85encode : 67108864 b in 0.204 s (313.610 MB/s) using 80.000 MB
z85decode : 83886080 b in 0.300 s (266.670 MB/s) using 100.000 MBThe existing Z85 implementation translates from the standard base85 alphabet to Z85 after the fact and within Python, so it was already benefiting from this PR but with substantial performance and memory usage overhead. That overhead is now gone. |
71f1955 to
7b4aba1
Compare
Add Ascii85, base85, and Z85 encoders and decoders to `binascii`, replacing the existing pure Python implementations in `base64`. No API or documentation changes are necessary with respect to `base64.a85encode()`, `b85encode()`, etc., and all existing unit tests for those functions continue to pass without modification. Note that attempting to decode Ascii85 or base85 data of length 1 mod 5 (after accounting for Ascii85 quirks) now produces an error, as no encoder would emit such data. This should be the only significant externally visible difference compared to the old implementation. Resolves: pythongh-101178
7b4aba1 to
05ae5ad
Compare
|
PR has been rebased onto main at 78cfee6 with squashing. |
I believe you have to document this change. |
Fair point, I could do that. In case anyone argues for keeping the old behavior (silently ignoring length 1 mod 5), I won't do it just yet. |
If we were strictly following PEP-0399, _base64 would be a C module for accelerated functions in base64. Due to historical reasons, those should actually go in binascii instead. We still want to preserve the existing Python code in base64. Parting out facilities for accessing the C functions into a module named _base64 shouldn't risk a naming conflict and will simplify testing.
This is done differently to PEP-0399 to minimize the number of changed lines.
As we're now keeping the existing Python base 85 functions, the C implementations should behave exactly the same, down to exception type and wording. It is also no longer an error to try to decode data of length 1 mod 5.
|
The PR has been updated to preserve the existing base 85 Python functions in |
Importing update_wrapper() from functools to copy attributes is expensive. Do it ourselves for only the most relevant ones.
This requires some code duplication, but oh well.
Using a decorator complicates function signature introspection.
Do we really need to test the legacy API twice?
|
PR was accidentally closed due to misclicking on mobile. There should be a confirmation dialog or something 😅 |
Synopsis
Add Ascii85 and base85 encoder and decoder functions implemented in C to
binasciiand use them to greatly improve the performance and reduce the memory usage of the existing Ascii85, base85, and Z85 codec functions inbase64.No API or documentation changes are necessary with respect to any functions in
base64, and all existing unit tests for those functions continue to pass without modification.Resolves: gh-101178
Discussion
The base85-related functions in
base64are now wrappers for the new functions inbinascii, as envisioned in the docs:Parting out Ascii85 from base85 and Z85 was warranted in my testing despite the code duplication due to the various performance-murdering special cases in Ascii85.
Comments and questions are welcome.
Benchmarks
Updated April 20, 2025.
The old pure-Python implementation is two orders of magnitude slower and uses over O(40n) temporary memory.