Comment by unshavedyak

Do you think it is possible to integrate this with an existing string interner in the Rust ecosystem? Or one would need to roll their own?

The goal would be to compare two strings using only the 24-byte values, without touching the allocated part (if it points into a string larger than 24 bytes)

The first thing that makes me think this is impossible is that you only define an owned variant for your string type. But your can cleverly wrap a &'static str rather than allocate on heap, so if the interner can give a &'static str I think this could work, with some boilerplate. Namely: for strings smaller than 24 bytes don't intern and build a CompactString inline, for larger strings, intern, get a &'static str, then build a CompactString out of it. Then, two check if two strings are equal, you just compare its 24 bytes, and don't need to touch the interner for this at all.

However this only works if the interner actually leaks memory. If it returns you a &'a str that isn't 'static, then you can't store it on CompactString, unless your lib also provided a borrowed variant.

Also, to think about it, since interned strings are immutable (they are not a "string builder" like String is), you don't really need the capacity value for them, just the length. So it suggests a 16 bytes size, not 24. (but one could imagine an application where it's optimal to store 24 bytes inline rather than 16 anyway)

I think that this could be achieved with an 16 bytes &str wrapper, maybe something like &CompactStr, that works just like your CompactString, but wraps a &str instead (and offers no owned variant). Maybe such a thing could conceivably be included in the compact_string crate?

(Maybe make it 24 bytes even if it "wastes" some bytes, just to make it bitwise compatible with CompactString, so that borrowing CompactString into &CompactStr is zero cost - and then just zero out the remaining 8 bytes when a &CompactStr is stored on the heap)

[0] I was reading this post https://dev.to/cad97/string-interners-in-rust-797 that was written in response to this fasterthanlime post, but it contrasts interner with small string optimization, when you actually could have both!

I've been wondering something for ages. Where did you get the 24 byte number, and how does it compare in Unicode terms? That is, did you analyze a large corpus and determine that 24 bytes was right for the largest number of strings? And does it come out to, say, 10 Unicode characters? Whenever I think about designing a new language, this very issue pops up.

Is 26 characters next? I think the number of bytestrings of length <= 26 that are also valid UTF-8 is only 0.021 * 256^24.

compact_str is a fantastic crate, used by many projects. Do you know the byteyarn crate [0]? This could be nice to add this to the `Similar Crates` section if it makes sense.

[0] https://docs.rs/byteyarn/latest/byteyarn/

That’s amazing! I’m so glad you did :)

Null-terminated strings really are a mistake. Make vectorized algorithms problematic by forcing them to account for page size and paged memory in general as well as always scan for NUL, cannot be easily sliced without re-allocation, are opposite to how languages with better string primitives define them and in general don't save much by passing a single pointer over ptr + length.

std::string isn't null terminated (or at least it isn't guaranteed to be, I don't think it's forbidden for an implementation to do that).

That's why the c_str method exists, so you can get a pointer to a null terminated character array

More of a knock against C than C++, seeing as today’s C++ tends to prefer `string_view`s or at worst iterator pairs, neither of which use null-termination. (Saying that as someone who prefers C to C++ and avoids Rust exactly because of “better C++” vibes—I don’t want a better version of C++, if anything I want a much much simpler one that’s worse at some things.)

That said, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible to cram in 24 bytes of null-terminated payload (so 23 useful ones, the best you could hope for with null termination) into the same structure the same way by storing the compact version with null termination and ensuring the last byte is also always zero. For extra style points, define the last byte to be 24 minus payload length instead so you don’t need to recompute the length in the inline case.

To be clear: none of this makes null termination not dumb.

Probably this isn't helpful anyway - what's actually going on is more complicated and is explained later at a high level or I'll try now:

Rust has "niches" - bit patterns which are never used by that type and thus can be occupied by something else in a sum type (Rust's enum) which adds to that type. But stable Rust doesn't allow third parties to promise arbitrary niches exist for a type they made.

However, if you make a simple enumeration of N possibilities that automatically has a niche of all the M-N bit patterns which weren't needed by your enumeration in the M value machine integer that was chosen to store this enumerated type (M will typically be 256 or 65536 depending on how many things you enumerated)

So, CompactString has a custom enum type LastUtf8Char which it uses for the last byte in its data structure - this has values V0 through V191 corresponding to the 192 possible last bytes of a UTF-8 string. That leaves 64 bit patterns unused. Then L0 through L23 represent lengths - inline strings of length 0 to 23 inclusive which didn't need this last byte (if it was 24 then that's V0 through V191). Now we've got 40 bit patterns left.

Then one bit pattern (the pattern equivalent to the unsigned integer 216) signifies that this string data lives on the heap, the rest should be interpreted accordingly, and another (217) signifies that it's a weird static allocation (I do not know why you'd do this)

That leaves 38 bit patterns unused when the type is finished using any it wanted so there's still a niche for Option<CompactString> or MyCustomType<CompactString>

Maybe you need it if pointers are 16 bytes?