Q: Did you just way over-optimize for a specific CPU and tokenizer? How is it so fast?
No, I way over-optimized for every combination of these! The results are very consistent across CPUs (modern x86 and ARM), and across specific tokenizers.
The major improvements are in optimizing heavily an implementation that usually is outsourced to a Regex engine (pretokenization) using SIMD, minimizing branching and other tricks, as well as heavily optimizing caching of pretoken mappings (if a word has been seen before, look it up its encoded tokens efficiently). Caching is a very hard problem in this domain since the cache grows very quickly, and pretoken distributions are very long-tailed.
Finally, interactions with Python are minimized, and threads have minimal interactions with each other.
I run an AI platform and we need to tokenize fast and early to make a lot of decisions on the subsequent steps (things like routing, rate limiting and such). Its really important to do this efficiently even though its not a large % of total end to end time for the request.
1/1000 of inference compute is a non-trivial workload at scale. Gartner estimates ~$28B in inference spend for 2026 making this a $28 million dollar per year workload (edit: based on the assumption above)
Totally, edited my comment to specify "based on the assumption above." The main takeaway I was going for was 0.1% is not a small number in this context
Both the example libraries compared (tokenizers and tiktoken) are Rust-based with Python bindings. There's just a few levers in Rust that can speed it up even more particularly with LLM assistance as the AI Use Discloure here notes:
> Final profiling stages and the last ~4x worth of performance from eliminating branching and improving the pretoken cache hierarchy
1 year ago everyone would have called you insane for suggesting this. Now we all shrug and say yeah maybe we can do this and it’s actually a good idea?
Author here! In my case it's mostly pretraining experiments, where you might want to change your data mixture/filtering/processing of training data, and splits are usually done at a token-level instead of a text level. In this case we usually run for days on a huge number of CPUs to finish tokenizing something like DCLM.
From what I can tell it's also useful for inference when considering time-to-first-token (TTFT) as reported by fastokens.[0]
I'm not sure about the proprietary inference engines, but in the open source ones tokenization is done before looking up if a text sequence is present in the KV-cache. If you have a long prefix that's been seen before (say a system prompt), the time for tokenizing that will be a large part of your TTFT. The tokenizer cache should be warmed up in this case, so the throughput for Gigatoken would be significantly higher than reported in the repo.
> I'm not sure about the proprietary inference engines, but in the open source ones tokenization is done before looking up if a text sequence is present in the KV-cache
Is this necessary? Tokenisation is deterministic, so for a hit/miss check you can lookup on (a hash of) the source text instead of the tokens. You only need the tokens once you're seeking for the exact token index having determined there is a hit. That means tokenisation can proceed in parallel with your cache query, and since these caches are distributed in production systems I imagine the query itself could be slow.
I'm not trying to undermine the utility, and this is obviously excellent work. Being able to tokenise faster on the client also seems useful (precise token counts for context pruning heuristics, instead of `chars / 4`), and on a phone your work translates directly to energy savings. I'm just curious about the cache lookup point.
You can, but this usually results in sequences with padding/truncation, since you won't know how many tokens your inputs map to before you actually tokenize them. This also makes shuffling difficult.
In practice every training project I've worked on does tokenization in a separate data processing phase.
If you are training an LLM, you need to tokenize the text before it’s trained on. A lot of time this can be done in parallel with the GPU though.
I have spent way too much time waiting 10-15 minutes tokenizing my training dataset only for the run to crash over some minor bug after that. (If I was smarter, I’d test on a smaller batch first.)
Wait, since when does it matter whether something being hyper-optimized is useful? The computer going brrrr on an interesting problem is in itself the goal!
It didn’t come off as dismissive to me. I was curious as well as to where such optimizing helps and knew that the answers to your question would help me discover use cases I didn’t think of
It can be useful for checking input token usage before sending it to the model, e.g. preventing calls above a given token bound or grouping requests into batches.
It can also be used by the LLMs to provide the input and output token counts on the different APIs, though I'm not sure if this is how llama.cpp or other OpenAI-like APIs calculate the input/output tokens of a request.
I've data where i cannot store metadata that i need to search semantically so i embed it on the fly at every search with static embedding and tokenizing was more than 99% of the cpu time. Granted that was due the naive implementation of the default tokenizer which was o^2 with document length and just switching to a proper scanner solved most of it without going to simd and whatnot, but still.
Numbers are for the Gigatoken API, but compatibility mode just means eating a bunch of Python overhead (creating lists, reading strings to bytes). You can expect a modest ~200-300x speedup with compatibility mode depending on how you use it.
I can add some benchmarks for compatibility mode in the future. I have a little more juice to squeeze out of the Python interop though, so not quite ready for it yet.
Q: Did you just way over-optimize for a specific CPU and tokenizer? How is it so fast? No, I way over-optimized for every combination of these! The results are very consistent across CPUs (modern x86 and ARM), and across specific tokenizers.
The major improvements are in optimizing heavily an implementation that usually is outsourced to a Regex engine (pretokenization) using SIMD, minimizing branching and other tricks, as well as heavily optimizing caching of pretoken mappings (if a word has been seen before, look it up its encoded tokens efficiently). Caching is a very hard problem in this domain since the cache grows very quickly, and pretoken distributions are very long-tailed.
Finally, interactions with Python are minimized, and threads have minimal interactions with each other.
Presumably there's a host of applications that just need to tokenize, though, and this would be great for those!
Source: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-07-2...
> Final profiling stages and the last ~4x worth of performance from eliminating branching and improving the pretoken cache hierarchy
From what I can tell it's also useful for inference when considering time-to-first-token (TTFT) as reported by fastokens.[0]
I'm not sure about the proprietary inference engines, but in the open source ones tokenization is done before looking up if a text sequence is present in the KV-cache. If you have a long prefix that's been seen before (say a system prompt), the time for tokenizing that will be a large part of your TTFT. The tokenizer cache should be warmed up in this case, so the throughput for Gigatoken would be significantly higher than reported in the repo.
[0] https://github.com/crusoecloud/fastokens
Is this necessary? Tokenisation is deterministic, so for a hit/miss check you can lookup on (a hash of) the source text instead of the tokens. You only need the tokens once you're seeking for the exact token index having determined there is a hit. That means tokenisation can proceed in parallel with your cache query, and since these caches are distributed in production systems I imagine the query itself could be slow.
I'm not trying to undermine the utility, and this is obviously excellent work. Being able to tokenise faster on the client also seems useful (precise token counts for context pruning heuristics, instead of `chars / 4`), and on a phone your work translates directly to energy savings. I'm just curious about the cache lookup point.
In practice every training project I've worked on does tokenization in a separate data processing phase.
I have spent way too much time waiting 10-15 minutes tokenizing my training dataset only for the run to crash over some minor bug after that. (If I was smarter, I’d test on a smaller batch first.)
It can also be used by the LLMs to provide the input and output token counts on the different APIs, though I'm not sure if this is how llama.cpp or other OpenAI-like APIs calculate the input/output tokens of a request.
A massive speedup like this is a nice efficiency savings on some of these data pipelines for sure.