Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make CategoricalValue equality comparisons faster when pools are the same #56

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 25, 2017

Conversation

nalimilan
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

The NullableCategoricalArray did not actually contain any null value. Also
test isqual(::CategoricalValue, ::CategoricalValue).
…same

That's the most common case, and if the compiler is able to hoist the
=== check a loop could be much more efficient.

Also fix NullableCategoricalArray benchmark, which did not actually include
any null values.
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 25, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.07%) to 90.964% when pulling a07cf5d on nl/eq into 388575a on master.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Feb 25, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #56 into master will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #56      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.89%   90.96%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines         494      498       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits          449      453       +4     
  Misses         45       45
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/value.jl 64.86% <100%> (+4.25%)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 388575a...a07cf5d. Read the comment docs.

@nalimilan nalimilan merged commit 59c8bcd into master Feb 25, 2017
@nalimilan nalimilan deleted the nl/eq branch February 25, 2017 09:59
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