Make comparison of Unsliced values more efficient
#658
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
jeltsch
requested review from
jorisdral,
mheinzel,
recursion-ninja and
wenkokke
as code owners
jorisdral
reviewed
Mar 28, 2025
Glad that you’re happy. 🙂 Both your suggestions make perfect sense to me. I’ll keep them both. Let me squash and rebase the branch. Please accept this pull request if your happy with it. |
jeltsch
force-pushed
the
jeltsch/efficient-unsliced-comparison
branch
from
4f60acd to
47573dd
Compare
Done. |
jorisdral
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This pull requests makes comparisons of
Unslicedvalues more efficient by avoiding conversions of byte arrays to vectors and instead using conversions to short byte strings. This also opens the opportunity to have comparisons ofUnslicedvalues for underlying data types other thanSerialisedKey, and this pull request introduces a corresponding generalization. Note, however, that this latter change implies that comparison now works by directly comparing the underlying byte arrays using the methods ofShortByteString; anyOrdinstantiation of the underlying data type is ignored. As of now, this doesn’t make a difference forSerialisedKey, asSerialisedKeyvalues are compared using the methods ofRawBytes, which work like the ones forShortByteString.