Some clarifications to dropping the updates in eval incr #1192
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of Changes
Based on the latest flame-graph, we are spending notable time doing
drop_in_placeof the iterators ofIncrementalJoin::eval.At first, I thought this was because we were cloning and dropping 4x the
SmallVec, but as these are inline and not heap allocated, that seems unlikely. So this PR tries to clarify in code that this isn't the case by usingArrayVecand borrows. Moreover, all the dropping work of the hash map is moved outside the rayon parallel iteration. Also, this makes the benchmarks slightly more accurate as they now do not clone-allocate + drop in place.API and ABI breaking changes
None
Expected complexity level and risk
1