Revert "Optimization: Optimize CollectionDecorator Enumerable behavior" #801
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
codebycliff
referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2017
* Optimization: Prevent duplicate iteration * Don't delegate Enumerable instance methods since CollectionDecorator includes Enumerable itself
codebycliff
deleted the
revert-707-optimization/prevent-duplicate-iteration
branch
|
Too bad that this didn't work without issues. The part with performance being better pre-patch seems odd to me since there are obviously fewer iterations. But since there are other issues anyway, I guess that doesn't matter much. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I'm reverting this pull request for the time being. It was just a performance optimization to begin with. It caused some issues as noted in this thread. Furthermore, running the benchmarks again are returning inconsistent results. This time around, it's showing the performance being slightly better pre-patch. I'm not sure if this is just do to inconsistencies on my machine or what. Either way, I think this is the safest bet until we can resolve the issues noted above and provide convincing benchmarks.