Souffle supports an equivalence class relation backed by a union find data structure. This is intriguing for possible usage in an egraph among other things. I’ve been sniffing around this idea and so has the Egg group (Remy, Yihong, Max, and Zach). This post is based upon their work with some bad ideas of my own thrown in. See their POPL paper and blog posts https://www.philipzucker.com/datalog-egraph-deux/ https://www.philipzucker.com/egraph-datalog/ for more in this vein.

What souffle doesn’t support is a simple efficient way to get the canonical element of the union find. To some degree this operation might break the relation abstraction and datalog semantics badly.

But if you do have such a thing, you can write a very simple looking subsumption clause to delete stale elements.

add(x, y, z) <= add(FIND(x), FIND(y), FIND(z)) :- true.


And you can directly input the most canonical element currently known, hopefully avoiding inserting very stale non canonical elements.

// comm-add
eql(as(xy, number), as(yx, number)),
// make sure to add canonical nodes
xy = $Add(x, y).  I thought I had a cute idea. What if one use the souffle user defined functor feature to backdoor into the native souffle equivalence relation or interact with an external union find library? A nice sample problem is commutativity and reassociating an AExpr tree for example N = 4, add(1, add(2, add(3, add(4)))). Without constant propagation, the egraph never learns the add(1,2) = 3 for example. Naively there are a lot of terms. The egraph significantly compresses this. In the saturated egraph there should be •$2^N - 1$eclasses. This corresponds to all possible ways of picking a set of the N leaves minus 1 because there is no eclass for no leaves. Modulo associativity and commutativity, an AExpr tree corresponds to just it’s set of leaves. • The number of add enodes is $\sum_{n=1}^{N} \sum_{k = 1}^{N - n} {N \choose n} {N - n \choose k}$. Suppose I pick n leaves for the left child and k leaves to go in the right child. You can choose a set of n leaves for the left child of add $N \choose n$ ways. You can then choose the right branch of add out of the remaining $N - n$ remaining leaves $N - n \choose k$ ways. Then sum over all possible values for $n$ and $k$. Wolfram alpha says this is$-2^{N+1} + 3^{N} + 1$which perhaps there is a way to see this directly. These numbers matter, because it was difficult to get this hacked souffle program to actually saturate to the right number of things. I think soundness of the equality saturation process is still ok. If souffle says two terms are equal, they really are. Completeness is highly questionable though. If souffle thinks it has saturated the egraph, it may not actually have. You can find Remy’s encoding of an initial approach that hacked the Souffle generated C++ code here. What this did is replace the dynamic linking mechanism of souffle with an include file that contained macros defining the user defined functor eqfind. #define eqfind(x) rel_1_myeq->ind.findNode(x)  In this way, one could get access to the actual souffle equivalence relation rel_1_myeq (the macros are important because the rel_1_myeq isn’t even in scope outside of the file). You can find my notes on this hack here This also required threading the findNode function up through the EquivalenceRelation class in souffle itself. A second version here instead made a global variable containing a souffle SparseDisjointSet. This is a bit less hacky and you don’t need to edit C++ code (regular dynamic linking works fine) and can use stock souffle. The idea was that one problem with the previous encoding is that eql(as(xy, number), as(yx, number)), add(FIND(x), FIND(y), FIND(xy)) :- add(y, x, yx), xy =$Add(x, y).


actually is in souffle’s eye’s is equivalent to

eql(as(xy, number), as(yx, number)) :-  add(y, x, yx), xy = $Add(x, y). add(FIND(x), FIND(y), FIND(xy)) :- add(y, x, yx), xy =$Add(x, y).


This is very different from out perspective though, since now yx and xy are not merged in the second rule and hence more stale terms are generated. If we rely on the functional dependence of user defined functor for operation ordering we can instead write

add(UFIND(xy, yx, x), FIND(y), FIND(xy)) :- add(y, x, yx),
xy = $Add(FIND(x), FIND(y)).  where UFIND unions the first two arguments and returns the FIND of the third. Now Souffle can’t decouple these rules. #include <cstdint> #include "souffle/CompiledSouffle.h" #include "souffle/datastructure/UnionFind.h" extern "C" { souffle::SparseDisjointSet<int32_t> ds = souffle::SparseDisjointSet<int32_t>(); int32_t unionNodes(int32_t x, int32_t y){ ds.unionNodes(x,y); return 0; } int32_t findNode(int32_t x){ return ds.findNode(x); } int32_t constfind(int32_t x, int32_t y){ return ds.findNode(y); } }  And then you can use these functors in the souffle program like so #define NUM(x) as(x, number) #define FIND(x) as(@findNode(NUM(x)), Id) #define UFIND(x,y,z) as(@constfind(@unionNodes(NUM(x), NUM(y)), NUM(z)), Id) .functor findNode(number):number .functor constfind(number,number):number // find second argument, ignores first .functor unionNodes(number,number):number // performs union, returns 0 .type Id = Add {x : Id, y : Id} | Num {n : number}  I don’t really know how to do better than this encoding and I’m confused why it isn’t working that well. It is orders of magnitude slower that egg, even compiled and parallelized. I am also very confused on why seemingly innocuous changes to the rules make a huge difference in terms of completeness and runtime. My best guess at the moment is that I’m fighting souffle’s scheduling of rules. # Thoughts • The contract with Souffle is that user defined functions are to be pure. eqfind definitely is not, returning different but consistent results at different points of the execution • Semi naive evaluation of the first encoding means that the latest additions to eq are not available. This makes unneccesarily stale terms that need to be cleaned up later by the subsumption mechanism. It is possible to also query the new_eq relation, but it isn’t obvious to me how this relation is merged into the original, in otherwords which canonical elements win. • Souffle has no idea that eqfind is dependent in any way upon eq, and doesn’t schedule accordingly. This also messes up souffles stratification analysis. In the second encoding • The naivest operational reading of datalog code is inaccurate. Multiple right hand sides are merely syntax sugar for completely separate rules. It is within souffle’s rights to decouple these completely. What this means is that the adding to the union find is temporally very separate from adding new terms. these terms will therefore often be pretty stale with respect to the union find. • It feels like somehow $Add and add getting out of sync with each other may be the problem.
• Without more control over scheduling, it feels like one can’t count on many invariants, invariants which are necessary for efficiency. In the second encoding, that the worst possible join was the one that worked best is evidence of this.

# Bits and Bobbles

User defined functors really could be used for some cool stuff. For example bitsets, or an external intern store that is keyed into by ints. This feature is so powerful and pretty easy to use once you give it a shot.