rredlist
provides two APIs, a higher-level one that
takes slightly more time but returns the data in a more user-friendly
format (a list), and a lower-level one (i.e., functions that end with
“_“) that takes less time but does no processing of the data (returning
the raw JSON string). Both APIs return the exact same information, but
it is up to the user whether the format processing is worth the extra
time, especially when performing bulk operations. To help inform this
decision by the user, here is some benchmarking related to the two APIs.
First, we’ll break down the total difference in computation time between
the two APIs, then we’ll dig into what components are causing this
difference. We’ll use microbenchmark::microbenchmark()
which has very little computational overhead. Note that the time units
vary from comparison to comparison, and the speed of these functions may
be highly hardware- and network-dependent.
We’ll start by benchmarking the two APIs head-to-head. We’ll test a couple of use cases, in rough order of increasing complexity.
microbenchmark(
rl_assessment(136250858),
rl_assessment_(136250858),
times = 10
)
#> Unit: milliseconds
#> expr min lq mean median uq max neval cld
#> rl_assessment(136250858) 257.1335 266.4728 286.9152 277.9695 313.7179 322.6544 10 a
#> rl_assessment_(136250858) 252.2234 260.1433 311.6918 287.6650 323.1625 478.7026 10 a
microbenchmark(
rl_family("Rheidae"),
rl_family_("Rheidae"),
times = 10
)
#> Unit: milliseconds
#> expr min lq mean median uq max neval cld
#> rl_family("Rheidae") 616.2717 617.7706 626.2586 621.4997 637.6830 647.0362 10 a
#> rl_family_("Rheidae") 610.7493 618.8672 633.7496 627.0082 650.9436 677.3837 10 a
microbenchmark(
rl_family("Corvidae", quiet = TRUE),
rl_family_("Corvidae", quiet = TRUE),
times = 10
)
#> Unit: seconds
#> expr min lq mean median uq max neval cld
#> rl_family("Corvidae", quiet = TRUE) 9.913948 9.984358 10.109995 10.153347 10.17414 10.23669 10 a
#> rl_family_("Corvidae", quiet = TRUE) 9.866713 9.895834 9.985805 9.986027 10.06351 10.07924 10 b
microbenchmark(
rl_family("Tyrannidae", quiet = TRUE),
rl_family_("Tyrannidae", quiet = TRUE),
times = 10
)
#> Unit: seconds
#> expr min lq mean median uq max neval cld
#> rl_family("Tyrannidae", quiet = TRUE) 35.19196 35.23844 35.50863 35.28687 35.38780 37.11036 10 a
#> rl_family_("Tyrannidae", quiet = TRUE) 34.76442 34.91699 35.00961 35.02371 35.08263 35.22149 10 b
microbenchmark(
rl_class("Aves", quiet = TRUE),
rl_class_("Aves", quiet = TRUE),
times = 10
)
#> Unit: seconds
#> expr min lq mean median uq max neval cld
#> rl_class("Aves", quiet = TRUE) 1137.053 1138.816 1142.828 1140.627 1145.490 1157.649 10 a
#> rl_class_("Aves", quiet = TRUE) 1127.992 1131.732 1132.963 1133.211 1135.561 1136.631 10 b
As you can see above, the two APIs take roughly the same amount of time for most use cases. I previously said that the low-level API is designed to be faster. While most of these comparisons agree with that statement, the time reduction is usually a few milliseconds per function call. When we get into more complex queries, like returning multiple pages of API results, we start to see larger time reductions, especially as the number of pages of results increases (10+ seconds for hundreds of pages).
Based on the above, it doesn’t seem to matter much, time-wise,
whether we parse the data or not. So then what takes up all of the query
time? Let’s break down the process of querying the API and downloading a
single page of assessments using some of the internal functions of
rredlist
:
microbenchmark(
res <- rredlist:::rr_GET_raw("taxa/family/Rheidae"), # get the raw data for the first page
x <- res$parse("UTF-8"), # parse the raw response data to JSON
rredlist:::rl_parse(x, parse = TRUE), # parse the JSON to a list of dataframes
rredlist:::rl_parse(x, parse = FALSE), # parse the JSON to a list of lists
times = 10
)
#> Unit: microseconds
#> expr min lq mean median
#> res <- rredlist:::rr_GET_raw("taxa/family/Rheidae") 612396.800 616270.001 629656.6911 618445.5010
#> x <- res$parse("UTF-8") 770.001 875.801 1043.2110 898.9515
#> rredlist:::rl_parse(x, parse = TRUE) 1030.701 1110.602 1604.1812 1256.4015
#> rredlist:::rl_parse(x, parse = FALSE) 59.501 62.102 81.9312 85.3010
#> uq max neval cld
#> 644299.401 658205.701 10 a
#> 930.101 2283.101 10 b
#> 2094.601 2946.201 10 b
#> 94.601 113.401 10 b
The above benchmarking shows us that the vast majority of time is
spent downloading data from the IUCN API. For a single page of results,
even the highest level of parsing takes only 0.15% of the time it takes
to download the data. Further, while parsing to a list of dataframes
(parse = TRUE
) takes about 10 times as long as just parsing
to a list of lists (parse = FALSE
), both methods remain
very quick compared to the process of downloading the data.
Now let’s break down a multi-page query:
microbenchmark(
lst <- rredlist:::page_assessments("taxa/family/Tyrannidae",
key = rredlist:::check_key(NULL),
quiet = TRUE), # get the data for all of the pages
rredlist:::combine_assessments(lst, parse = TRUE), # parse the JSON to a list of dataframes
rredlist:::combine_assessments(lst, parse = FALSE), # parse the JSON to a list of lists
times = 10
)
#> Unit: milliseconds
#> expr
#> lst <- rredlist:::page_assessments("taxa/family/Tyrannidae", key = rredlist:::check_key(NULL), quiet = TRUE)
#> rredlist:::combine_assessments(lst, parse = TRUE)
#> rredlist:::combine_assessments(lst, parse = FALSE)
#> min lq mean median uq max neval cld
#> 34726.9180 35026.3228 35239.94843 35172.9793 35400.4013 35931.0798 10 a
#> 238.9440 243.5736 249.50199 248.0357 253.9973 263.0525 10 b
#> 12.4059 12.8977 15.36693 13.4167 14.0818 27.1965 10 c
Again, even with about 40 pages of data to parse, the download takes the vast majority of the time. The highest-level parsing has increased to about 1% of the time it takes to download the data, but this remains less than a second compared to the ~35 second download.
Ultimately, both APIs take about the same amount of time because the majority of time is spent downloading the data from the IUCN database and reading it into R. For larger downloads, the parsing done by the high-level API may take an appreciable amount of time (tenths of seconds to seconds), It’s possible that users who are calling these functions many (e.g., thousands) of times would appreciate this time reduction. However, for most users it probably won’t matter. Furthermore, keep in mind that if you use the low-level API you will likely need to do your own processing after the fact in order to do any sort of downstream analyses. Ultimately, the choice is up to you.