⚡ Bolt: [성능 개선] 검색 시 불필요한 O(N) 집합 복사 제거

[seonghobae]

💡 What: TranscriptIndex.search 내에서 candidates 초기화 시 사용되는 불필요한 set(postings) 방어적 복사를 제거했습니다.
🎯 Why: Python의 비트 단위 AND 연산자(&)는 내부적으로 완전히 새로운 집합 객체를 생성하므로 루프 진입 시 첫 번째 조건의 O(N) 방어적 복사가 불필요합니다. 이를 제거하여 대규모 인덱스에서 메모리 할당 및 CPU 낭비를 방지했습니다.
📊 Impact: 대규모 스크립트 검색 시 초기 집합 구성 속도를 향상시키고 불필요한 메모리 할당량을 크게 줄입니다 (벤치마크 기준 교집합 연산 속도 개선).
🔬 Measurement: 검색 함수(TranscriptIndex.search)에 대한 벤치마크 테스트 및 전체 pytest 테스트 스위트 통과 완료.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 14865873636703036822 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 4 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 9c66e3b4-2cb5-4421-b98a-0370894e62b4

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a8e4956 and a79cb04.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .jules/bolt.md
• transcript_search.py

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head a79cb04127d6e8ad423674e817b34a5084bb3c41.

• Head SHA: a79cb04127d6e8ad423674e817b34a5084bb3c41

• Workflow run: 31911089148

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: a79cb04127d6e8ad423674e817b34a5084bb3c41
• Workflow run: 31911089148
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head a79cb04127d6e8ad423674e817b34a5084bb3c41.

• Head SHA: a79cb04127d6e8ad423674e817b34a5084bb3c41

• Workflow run: 31911089148

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Closing as superseded by #434. #434 contains the same TranscriptIndex.search optimization (candidates = postings on the first posting list, with later intersections still allocating a new set) and adds one additional bounded optimization in the same transcript_search.py hot path by reading/converting segment text once before constructing _Entry and token counts. Both branches are based on the same protected-main snapshot, and #422 has no unique production behavior beyond the subset preserved in #434. No checks/reviews from this closed lane transfer.