Skip to content

Conversation

@buybackoff
Copy link
Contributor

Same as #10845

If OK, this PR includes the Map changes. The Map one could be closed and this merged, or will rebase.

Store height in leaves. Compared to the old discussion, when Left/Right were proposed to be stored in a universal node,
this adds 4 bytes to leaves or 2 bytes per item on average (vs 16/8).
`Match` produces `sub 1` and `switch` instruction. Here, for any non-trivial count,
nodes are more frequent than leaves on the path, so branch prediction should be beneficial.
@cartermp
Copy link
Contributor

@buybackoff No worries, we'll figure out the right merge strategy. I believe that because the changes are the same, it shouldn't matter if we take them independently.

Copy link
Contributor

@cartermp cartermp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes look good for set too (I mean, they're the same, but hey, looks good!)

@cartermp
Copy link
Contributor

@dsyme if you could take a look here as well that would be great.

@buybackoff just FYI - in case this does take time to merge - we have a policy of two approvals required for PRs. We relax that a bit when the changes are straightforward and/or tiny, but this will require two sign-offs to proceed since it affects such a core set of data structures.

Copy link
Contributor

@KevinRansom KevinRansom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. Thanks for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants