Speed up the craft definition handling #8097
Merged
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
|
Didn't notice this until SmallJoker pointed this out. |
This was referenced Jan 12, 2019
The craft definition handling code that collects the names of the craftable nodes suffers from vector reallocation performance hits, slowing down instances with lots of crafting recipes (VanessaE's DreamBuilder and most public server some to my mind when thinking about this). As in each instance the size of the resulting vector is already known, add a reserve() call before the offending loops to allocate the needed chunk of memory within the result vector in one go, getting rid of the overhead.
osjc
force-pushed
the
OptimizeCraftDef
branch
from
b2adbc9
to
80a146b
Compare
|
Clarified the commit message a bit. |
nerzhul
added
the
Trivial
osjc
added a commit
to osjc/minetest
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2019
The craft definition handling code that collects the names of the craftable nodes suffers from vector reallocation performance hits, slowing down instances with lots of crafting recipes (VanessaE's DreamBuilder and most public server some to my mind when thinking about this). As in each instance the size of the resulting vector is already known, add a reserve() call before the offending loops to allocate the needed chunk of memory within the result vector in one go, getting rid of the overhead.
luk3yx
pushed a commit
to luk3yx/minetest
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2019
The craft definition handling code that collects the names of the craftable nodes suffers from vector reallocation performance hits, slowing down instances with lots of crafting recipes (VanessaE's DreamBuilder and most public server some to my mind when thinking about this). As in each instance the size of the resulting vector is already known, add a reserve() call before the offending loops to allocate the needed chunk of memory within the result vector in one go, getting rid of the overhead.
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.
The craft definition handling code that collects the names of
the craftable nodes suffers from vector reallocation
performance hits, slowing down instances with lots of
crafting recipes (VanessaE's DreamBuilder and most public
server some to my mind when thinking about this). As in each
instance the size of the resulting vector is already known,
add a reserve() call before the offending loops to allocate
the needed chunk of memory within the result vector in one
go, getting rid of the overhead.