Lazy rar cache deserialization #6937
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This was causing numerous unnecessary cache misses.
…m/Forgind/msbuild into stop-removing-from-filestatecache
…m/forgind/msbuild into lazy-rar-cache-deserialization
Contributor
Author
|
Note that I based this on main + #6891. Only the last commit (Lazily deserialize rar cache) actually has the implementation I tried. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Based off of #6891 (comment)
@rokonec, I tried testing this, but the numbers I came up with weren't terribly promising. I only looked at first run after clean with no processes running, since I thought that would give a fair but positive view, and it seemed to make building OrchardCore slightly slower. I know it would be better if I could avoid creating two SystemStates whenever I decide I do need to deserialize a statefile, but that should be relatively minor; is there anything obvious I did wrong with this implementation? If it looks as you'd expected, we might have to scrap this idea.