GHC performs aggressive inlining, which simply means rewriting a function call with the function's definition. Because all values in Haskell are referentially transparent, any function can be inlined within the scope of its definition. Especially in loops, inlining improves performance drastically. The GHC inliner does inlining within a module, but also to some extent cross-module and cross-package.

Some rules of thumb regarding inlining:

With these easy rules, you rarely need to worry about problems from bad inlining. For completeness's sake, there is also a NOINLINE pragma which ensures a definition is never inlined. NOINLINE is mostly used for hacks that would break referential transparency; see Chapter 4, The Devil's in the Detail.

Another powerful technique is stream fusion. Behind that fancy name is just a bunch of equations that are used to perform code rewriting (see Chapter 4, The Devil's in the Detail for the technicalities).

When working with lists, you may be tempted to rewrite code like this:

map f . map g . map h

Rather than to use intermediate lists:

map (f . g . h)

But there is no other reason than cosmetics to do this, because with optimizations GHC performs stream fusion, after which both expressions are time- and space-equivalent. Stream fusion is also performed for other structures than [], which we will take a look at in the next chapter.

In principle, (ad hoc) polymorphic programs should carry a performance cost. To evaluate a polymorphic function, a dictionary must be passed in, which contains the specializations for the type specified on the caller side. However, almost always GHC can fill in the dictionary already at compile time, reducing the cost of polymorphism to zero. The big and obvious exception is code that uses reflection (Typeable). Also, some sufficiently complex polymorphic code might defer the dictionary passing to runtime, although, most of the time you can expect a zero cost.

Either way, it might ease your mind to have some notion of the cost of dictionary passing in runtime. Let's write a program with both general and specialized versions of the same function, compile it without optimizations, and compare the performance. Our program will just iterate a simple calculation with double-precision values:

-- file: class_performance.hs

class Some a where
    next :: a -> a -> a

instance Some Double where
    next a b = (a + b) / 2

goGeneral :: Some a => Int -> a -> a
goGeneral 0 x = x
goGeneral n x = goGeneral (n-1) (next x x)

goSpecialized :: Int -> Double -> Double
goSpecialized 0 x = x
goSpecialized n x = goSpecialized (n-1) (next' x x)

next' :: Double -> Double -> Double
next' a b = (a + b) / 2

I compiled and ran both versions separately with their own main entry points using the following command lines:

ghc class_performance.hs
time ./class_performance +RTS -s

On my machine, with 5,000,000 iterations, the general version does 1.09 GB of allocation and takes 3.4s. The specialized version does 1.01 GB of allocation and runs in about 3.2s. So the extra memory cost was about 8%, which is considerable. But by enabling optimizations, both versions will have exactly the same performance.

Here's a puzzle: given the following definition, which is faster, partial or total?

partialHead :: [a] -> a
partialHead (x:_) = x

totalHead :: [a] -> Maybe a
totalHead []    = Nothing
totalHead (x:_) = Just x

partial = print $ partialHead [1..]

total = print $ case totalHead [1..] of
                  Nothing -> 1
                    Just n -> n

The total variant uses a head that wraps its result inside a new data constructor, whereas the partial one results in a crash when a case is not matched, but in exchange doesn't perform any extra wrapping. Surely the partial variant must be faster, right? Well, almost always it is not. Both functions have exactly the same time and space requirements.

Partial functions are justified in some situations, but performance is rarely if ever one of them. In the example, the Maybe-wrapper of total will have a zero performance cost. The performance cost of the case analysis will be left, however, but a similar analysis is done in the partial variant too; the error case must be handled anyway, so that the program can exit gracefully. Of course, even GHC is not a silver bullet and you should always keep in mind that it might miss some optimizations. If you absolutely need to rely on certain optimizations to take place, you should test your program to confirm the correct results.