This project provides a command line app which parses PLY files using several different parsing libraries and populates a simple polygon mesh data structure using their results. It produces a report about how long each parser took. The performance report can be formatted as Markdown or CSV.
We measure performance by using each of the parsers to load a PLY file and populate a simple polygon mesh structure. We do this for every file the user specifies on the command line.
The mesh structure that we're populating is:
struct PolyMesh {
// Per-vertex data
float* pos = nullptr; // has 3*numVerts elements.
float* normal = nullptr; // if non-null, has 3 * numVerts elements.
float* uv = nullptr; // if non-null, has 2 * numVerts elements.
uint32_t numVerts = 0;
// Per-index data
int* indices = nullptr;
uint32_t numIndices = 0; // number of indices = sum of the number of indices for each face
// Per-face data
uint32_t* faceStart = nullptr; // Entry 'i' is the index at which the indices for this face start. It has `numFaces + 1` entries.
uint32_t numFaces = 0;
~PolyMesh() {
delete[] pos;
delete[] normal;
delete[] uv;
delete[] indices;
delete[] faceStart;
}
};Each parser must populate the pos, indices and faceStart arrays. The
normal and uv arrays must be populated too if the input file contains data
for them.
This task was chosen because it's quite similar (though simplified) to the use case that I originally needed a PLY parser for: loading a scene which uses (potentially lots of) PLY files to store all the geometry.
Note that we're loading a polygon mesh rather than a triangle mesh because my test data set contains quite a few PLY files that are quad meshes - or a mix of triangles and quads - and I didn't want the overhead of a polygon triangulation routine in the benchmark. Most ply libraries don't ship their own polygon triangulation code (miniply being the exception) so I'd just be benchmarking that same code against itself over and over.
The parsers currently being tested, in alphabetical order:
Detailed results from running this tool on a few different computers can be found in the results-* subdirectories. If you just want the high-level overview, see below.
Disclaimer: The author of this benchmark is also the author of the miniply
library. Every effort has been made to keep the performance comparisons as
fair as possible, but the usage of miniply may be better optimised simply due
to better familiarity. Any improvements to the code will be gratefully
received!
The code for this performance testing tool uses the MIT license, but the parsing libraries it uses are each subject to their own licenses.
-
tinyplyonly has partial support for list properties: it assumes all lists belonging to the same property will have the same number of entries. It will not produce a correct mesh for any PLY files where this doesn't hold and may crash. We currently use a simple check to detect most of these cases and flag the run as failed, but the test isn't 100% accurate: it's unlikely but still possible for a mesh to pass the test while having varying numbers of vertices per face. -
The
RPlycode relies on the order of vertex properties being sensible. Any properties loaded as a group (e.g. "x", "y" and "z" for vertex position), must be in the same order in the file as they are expected by the mesh structure, otherwise the mesh will be incorrect. This is not an error that the perf testing code can detect (yet) so the results will still be reported as if they were correct. Hopefuly this will be pretty rare though...!
When all faces in a PLY file have the same number of vertices, some parsers
(miniply, tinyply and msh_ply) can take advantage of that to parse the
file much more efficiently.
In general, because we're parsing an unknown set of files, we cannot know in advance how many vertices each face in a given file will have. But there are some important use cases where you might have this knowledge - for example when the PLY files are being generated as an intermediate step in your data pipeline - so we want to be able to benchmark the parsing in that case too (and give each parser a chance to really shine).
Precognition mode simulates having that knowledge by pre-parsing each input file and inspecting its face list.
Add --precognition on the command line to enable precognition mode.
I called it precognition because it's kind of like letting the parsers see into the future in a limited way. :-)
This is to do with the order in which we process the files with each parser.
"Normal" mode is:
for each file:
for each parser:
parse file
whereas "Transposed" mode is:
for each parser:
for each file:
parse file
The results in this benchmark are heavily influenced by whether the file is already in the OS's file cache or not. This means whichever parser runs first may be at a disadvantage because its input file may not yet be cached, but parsing it will mean that it is cached by the time we run all the other parsers.
The benchmark works around this by warming up the file cache before running any of the parsers on a given input file. It streams the entire file into memory without attempting to do any parsing, just to make sure it's in the disk cache.
You can disable this behaviour with the --no-prewarm option.
This behaves slightly differently when parsing in transposed mode. In this case we run the prewarm step oncce for all files before running any of the parsers.
As well as reporting the raw parsing times, the benchmark can also display a "slowdown" factor. This is the ratio of the time for parser n to the time for parser 0.
Parser 0 is miniply by default, but you can disable this and any of the other parsers using command line options.
- Times are in milliseconds and are for parsing all files in the collection.
- The machine used for these timings was a 2015 MacBook Pro.
- Prewarming is on for all of these runs.
- Side note: I don't think it's very useful having separate results for with/without
--transpose, so from now on I'll only be reporting the results with--transpose(since that tends to complete slightly faster). - A "failed" result means there were one or more files in the collection which that parser couldn't load.
Precognition off:
ply-parsing-perf --summary --quiet --slowdown --transposed allplyfiles.txt
| Collection | # files | miniply (Slowdown) | happly (Slowdown) | tinyply (Slowdown) | rply (Slowdown) | msh_ply (Slowdown) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pbrt-v3-scenes | 8929 | 5290.716 (1.00x) | 30290.070 (5.73x) | failed | 16154.438 (3.05x) | 21370.725 (4.04x) |
| benedikt-bitterli | 3032 | 830.308 (1.00x) | 4451.386 (5.36x) | 4552.060 (5.48x) | 2345.797 (2.83x) | 3211.711 (3.87x) |
| Stanford3DScans | 19 | 3247.980 (1.00x) | 20600.456 (6.34x) | 14793.431 (4.55x) | 7037.437 (2.17x) | 12490.657 (3.85x) |
Precognition on:
ply-parsing-perf --summary --quiet --slowdown --transposed --precognition allplyfiles.txt
| Collection | # files | miniply (Slowdown) | happly (Slowdown) | tinyply (Slowdown) | rply (Slowdown) | msh_ply (Slowdown) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pbrt-v3-scenes | 8929 | 4165.718 (1.00x) | 30087.391 (7.22x) | failed | 16426.897 (3.94x) | 5160.723 (1.24x) |
| benedikt-bitterli | 3032 | 722.505 (1.00x) | 4282.659 (5.93x) | 2391.913 (3.31x) | 2376.471 (3.29x) | 713.467 (0.99x) |
| Stanford3DScans | 19 | 1924.726 (1.00x) | 20596.981 (10.70x) | 8884.919 (4.62x) | 7265.146 (3.77x) | 2849.680 (1.48x) |
- Times are in milliseconds and are for parsing all files in the collection.
- The machine used for these timings was a late-2015 Windows 10 laptop with an SSD and 16 GB of RAM.
- Prewarming is on for all of these runs.
- Side note: As with the macOS results, I'll only be reporting the results with
--transposefrom now on. - A "failed" result means there were one or more files in the collection which that parser couldn't load.
Precognition off:
ply-parsing-perf --summary --quiet --slowdown --transposed allplyfiles.txt
| Collection | # files | miniply (Slowdown) | happly (Slowdown) | tinyply (Slowdown) | rply (Slowdown) | msh_ply (Slowdown) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pbrt-v3-scenes | 8929 | 5575.460 (1.00x) | 43104.037 (7.73x) | failed | 21100.762 (3.78x) | 24442.489 (4.38x) |
| benedikt-bitterli | 3097 | 926.212 (1.00x) | 6276.490 (6.78x) | 9239.515 (9.98x) | 3371.967 (3.64x) | 3563.131 (3.85x) |
| Stanford3DScans | 19 | 3468.169 (1.00x) | 33506.487 (9.66x) | 28660.468 (8.26x) | 9505.724 (2.74x) | 16261.535 (4.69x) |
Precognition on:
ply-parsing-perf --summary --quiet --slowdown --transposed --precognition allplyfiles.txt
| Collection | # files | miniply (Slowdown) | happly (Slowdown) | tinyply (Slowdown) | rply (Slowdown) | msh_ply (Slowdown) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pbrt-v3-scenes | 8929 | 4134.593 (1.00x) | 45881.594 (11.10x) | failed | 22945.844 (5.55x) | 6513.492 (1.58x) |
| benedikt-bitterli | 3097 | 569.485 (1.00x) | 6203.582 (10.89x) | 4565.575 (8.02x) | 3351.233 (5.88x) | 970.368 (1.70x) |
| Stanford3DScans | 19 | 2333.806 (1.00x) | 33084.601 (14.18x) | 16473.786 (7.06x) | 9867.777 (4.23x) | 4036.066 (1.73x) |
This is how many lines of code it takes to call each of the parsers in
ply-parsing-perf's main.cpp. This is the number of lines between the opening
and closing brace of each of the parse_with_foo functions, plus (in the case
of rply) the line count for any additional supporting functions & data types.
This is a very rough measure. It includes blank lines, comments, and punctuation-only lines. It also includes some code specific to this particular benchmark, such as handling precognition mode
So take it with a pinch of salt. :-)
| Parser | # lines |
|---|---|
| miniply | 93 |
| happly | 93 |
| tinyply | 140 |
| rply | 139 |
| msh_ply | 155 |
-
The fastest parser overall (for this workload) is miniply with msh_ply a fairly close second.
-
Both happly and tinyply are a lot slower on Windows than on macOS. I think this is largely due to differences between Microsoft's standard library implementation and Clang's: both parsers make heavy use of iostreams and Microsoft's implementation of this in particular is quite slow.
-
In terms of shortest calling code, happly and miniply are equal best, but the way you use each of them is very different. With happly we load the entire file into memory then copy the data into our own structure. With miniply we load enough info to preallocate our data structure then have the parser populate it for us. happly is probably easier to get started with, but miniply is a lot faster and has a much lower memory overhead.
-
Both rply and msh_ply are written in C. The other parsers are all written in C++.
-
rply requires the most complicated calling code because it requires you to provide callback functions and (in this case) a supporting struct. All of the others can be written as a single self-contained function.
-
miniply lacks support for writing PLY files. The other libraries all support this.