Fast Map Union and Local Instances Through Instance Types

26 February 2023

In part 31 of my crusade against GHC’s coherence guarantees, I have actually done it! This time we will end up with a way to generate local type class instances without any asterisks about code breaking with optimizations. On the way, we are going to end up solving the dreaded Fast Map Union Problem, combining two of my favorite Haskell tricks, and discovering a bug in a previous version of GHC.

But before we get to that, let’s start at the beginning

What even is this ‘fast Map union problem’?

Let’s pretend that Haskell did have consistent locally overridable type class instances. In that case, the interface for Map would be completely broken.

Look at the type of Data.Map.insert

insert :: Ord k => k -> v -> Map k v -> Map k v

See the issue? Map is some kind of ordered tree internally, so it depends on the Ord instance being consistent across different operations, but with local instances, we don’t have any guarantees like that.

-- This uses the regular instance for Ord Int
let map = insert (1 :: Int) 1 mempty

-- This uses a different, incompatible instance on the same map!
withLocalOrd reverseOrdInt $ insert (2 :: Int) 2 map 

If you think about this for a bit, you may come up with a solution: You can store the instance in the map. This is how most map implementations in other languages work after all.

data Map k v = MkMap (Dict (Ord k)) (ActualMapImplementation k v)

And now the type of insert doesn’t mention Ord at all anymore so everything is sunshine and roses

insert :: k -> v -> Map k v -> Map k v

…until it isn’t! Consider the type of union now

union :: Map k v -> Map k v -> Map k v

What happens if both maps use different Ord k instances? We have no way to statically ensure that they don’t. The way to solve this in practice would be to just reinsert every value from one map in the other, but that means that union is now drastically slower than it would be if we could assume that both maps use the same instance (It’s now at least linear in the size of one map vs. logarithmic in that of the smaller one).

Instance Types

Now, what we really need here is a way to statically ensure that both maps use the same Ord implementation. In a dependently typed language, one could just carry the instance dictionary in the type

data Map k v (inst :: Ord k) = ...

union :: Map k v inst -> Map k v inst -> Map k v inst

But we cannot do that in Haskell (yet?), so we need a few more tricks. What we absolutely need to do is to somehow move the used instance to the type level, so let’s start there. While we cannot directly depend on the instance value, we can define a dummy type as a stand-in.

With this new type, we can write a version of Ord that carries its concrete instance in the type. Every function with an Ord constraint should now be polymorphic over this instance parameter.

class OrdI inst a | inst -> a where
    compareI :: a -> a -> Ordering

data RegularOrdInt
instance OrdI RegularOrdInt Int where
    compareI = compare

data ReverseOrdInt
instance OrdI ReverseOrdInt Int where
    compareI x y = case compare x y of
        LT -> GT
        EQ -> EQ
        GT -> LT

And now we can finally parameterize Map over the used Ord instance!

data IMap inst k v = ...

insert :: OrdI inst k => k -> v -> IMap inst k v -> IMap inst k v
union :: OrdI inst k => IMap inst k v -> IMap inst k v -> IMap inst k v

union statically ensures that both maps agree on their instances.

The only ‘issue’ here is that we lose some inference. This is more or less unavoidable if we want multiple instances to coexist (well, more on that later). We need to tell Haskell what instance to use at some point, but it’s not that bad, since at least for IMaps, which carry the instance in their type, we only need to do this once.

let map1 = insert 1 1 $ insert 2 2 $ empty @RegularOrdInt
let map2 = insert @ReverseOrdInt 3 3 $ insert 4 4 $ empty

union map1 map2 -- Type error: Couldn't match type 'RegularOrdInt' with `ReverseOrdInt`

How do local instances fit into this?

Quite well as it turns out! We can combine two of my favorite Haskell tricks to implement them in current Haskell (You can stop pretending that they exist. We are going to implement them for real now)

Local instances might differ between different executions of the same code, so we need to make sure that the instance types can only be used locally and cannot escape. If this sounds familiar that is because there is a decent chance that you have used something similar before: runST.

ST is a monad that is used for local mutability inside pure code. You can use it to create STRefs and mutate them, just like you would in your favorite imperative language2, except that Haskell, by virtue of being a pure language, needs to make absolutely sure that you never ever return an STRef from runST. Doing so would allow effects in one usage of the supposedly pure runST to affect the result of another one.

How does ST do this? It uses higher-rank types!

newSTRef :: a -> ST s (STRef s a)
runST :: (forall s. ST s a) -> a

If you have never seen this before, you’re probably quite confused right now. The type forall s. ST s a specifies that the argument to runST needs to be an ST value that works for any possible instantiation of s. Crucially for this case, this means that the s variable is, unlike a, not a type parameter of runST itself, but actually one of the arguments to runST. This is much clearer if we write runST with an explicit outer forall.

runST :: forall a. (forall s. ST s a) -> a

Now, the reason this ensures that no STRefs escape is that the s parameter of the STRef is the same as that of the containing ST monad. If you were able to return an STRef from the argument to runST, e.g. by passing something of type forall s. ST s (STRef s Int), what type would the result have? Blindly substituting would yield STRef s Int, but what is s now? Previously, s was bound by the forall in the type of the argument to runST, but that forall does not exist anymore! This is why GHC will not accept this code and complain about an ‘escaping skolem’.

We can use exactly the same trick for local type class instances to invent an instance type that only exists locally! If we can implement a function of the following type, then this will ensure that instance types cannot possibly escape.

withOrdI :: forall a b. (a -> a -> Ordering) -> (forall inst. OrdI inst a => b) -> b

Now, how do we implement this function? If you read the first post in this series, you will probably know the answer already.

At runtime, GHC represents type classes via a technique called dictionary passing. This means that a function with an Ord constraint like Ord a => a -> a -> Ordering will be turned into a function that takes an implementation of that type class as an argument (Ord a -> a -> a). This implementation, called a dictionary, is just a regular record-like data type that contains an implementation for every method.

Using GADTs, we can capture this dictionary in a value.

data OrdIDict a where
    OrdIDict :: Ord a => OrdIDict a

If we are now able to replicate the structure of this OrdIDict exactly, but with a custom record of methods, we can use unsafeCoerce to convert it to a functional OrdIDict a. By pattern matching on the result, we can release the dictionary back into a regular instance, which now contains our handwritten type class instance!

Instinctively, your definition of OrdIDict would probably look like this

data OrdIDict inst a where
    OrdIDict :: OrdI inst a => OrdIDict inst a

This is not going to work though. We need to invent a new type for inst, so OrdIDict cannot take it as a parameter. Thanks to Haskell’s support for existential types, this is not actually an issue, since we can just leave it off3.

data OrdIDict a where
    OrdIDict :: OrdI inst a => OrdIDict a

OrdI only has a single method, so it will be represented by the equivalent of a newtype record at runtime. This is erased entirely, so we do not need to build a record around our a -> a -> Ordering function.

The OrdIDict wrapper adds some indirection though, so we need to replicate that.

data FakeDict a = FakeDict a

All preparations are complete. We are ready for the magic4!

withOrdI :: forall a b. (a -> a -> Ordering) -> (forall inst. OrdI inst a => b) -> b
withOrdI dict body = 
    case unsafeCoerce (FakeDict dict) :: OrdIDict a of
        (OrdIDict @inst) -> body @inst

And that’s… it!

Well, not quite. If you paid very close attention, you may notice that we have no way to bind the inst type variable in the (forall inst. OrdI inst a => b) argument. This means if we put a lambda there, we cannot actually mention inst anywhere. This is easy enough to solve by introducing a Proxy value.

withOrdIProxy :: forall a b. (a -> a -> Ordering) -> (forall inst. OrdI inst a => Proxy inst -> b) -> b
withOrdIProxy dict body = 
    case unsafeCoerce (FakeDict dict) :: OrdIDict a of
        (OrdIDict @inst) -> body @inst (Proxy @inst)

Let’s try it out!

We can start with some concrete instances

map1 = insert 1 1 (empty @Int)
map2 = insert 2 2 (empty @Int)

map3 = insert 3 3 (empty @ReverseIntOrd)
map4 = insert 4 4 (empty @ReverseIntOrd)

fine1 = union map1 map2
fine2 = union map3 map4

notFine = union map1 map3 -- fails!

Looking good. Now let’s try local instances

local = withOrdIProxy compare \(Proxy @inst) -> do
    let localMap1 :: IMap inst Int Int = insert @inst 1 1 (empty @inst)
$ ghc-9.2 insttypes.hs
insttypes.hs:80:42: error:
     Could not deduce (OrdI (*) Int) arising from a use of ‘insert’
      from the context: OrdI inst a0

Huh. That is… strange. It looks like for some strange reason, GHC defaults the inst parameter to… (*)5? Even if we add as many type annotations as physically possible?

If this smells like a bug in GHC, that is because it is! Or well, was.

If you run the same example with GHC 9.4, it will compile without complaining.

Now, let’s try that again

local = withOrdIProxy compare \(Proxy @inst) -> do
    let localMap1 = insert 1 1 (empty @inst)
    let localMap2 = insert 2 2 (empty @inst)

    let perfectlyFine = union localMap1 localMap2

    let notFine :: IMap RegularIntOrd Int Int = insert @inst 2 2 (empty @inst) -- fails!
    let notFine2 = union localMap1 map1 -- also fails!

    localMap1 -- fails!


Do we have to annotate the instance every time?

In this specific example with IMap, the number of type annotations required was quite manageable, but in code that uses OrdI like regular Ord, this is much less pleasant

min3 :: IOrd inst a => a -> a -> a -> a
min3 x y z = case compare @inst x y of -- needs a type application!
    GT -> case compare @inst y z of -- this one as well
        GT -> z
        _ -> y
    _ -> case compare @inst x z of -- same here
        GT -> case compare @inst y z of -- also here
            GT -> z
            _ -> y
        _ -> x

Used directly like this, this technique is really just Scrap your type classes with extra steps.

This is frustrating because we are just running up against GHC’s stubbornness here. There is only a single possible instance for IOrd inst a in scope, but GHC doesn’t want to choose it. Usually, this behavior might make sense, but it’s really not helpful for us.

Fortunately for us though, we are not the first to run into this issue! Polysemy, the popular effect system library, had the exact same problem. Polysemy makes it possible to define effects of the form Member Effect r over a set of effects r. The issue here is that, unlike mtl, Polysemy allows duplicate effects, so GHC again doesn’t trust that you really wanted to use the constraint from the signature and not another, currently unwritten one.

How did Polysemy solve that? They wrote a type checker plugin that disambiguates Polysemy constraints whenever there is exactly one relevant instance in scope.

This is exactly what we want, so we could probably copy most of it.

But that is a topic for a future blog post.


We covered quite a bit of ground there.

This is the first time in this series that I can write a conclusion without begging you to ‘please never ever use this anywhere near production’. This technique still relies on GHC’s internal type class representation (and you should always be careful around unsafeCoerce) but so does the popular reflection package, so you should be fine.

If you want to try this for yourself, you can get the code in a gist. Just make sure to use GHC 9.4 or above.

If you want to tell me your thoughts about this post, you can leave a comment on Reddit or contact me directly.