generated from tc39/template-for-proposals
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
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
[Polyfill] FIx - Deduplicate watched signals #191
Open
issammani
wants to merge
2
commits into
tc39:main
Choose a base branch
from
issammani:fix/dedup-watched-signals
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems a bit expensive to reconstruct this set on each watch call. Is there any way to reduce this cost, whether by maintaining the set across several method calls, or somehow avoiding constructing a set and using the producerNode data structure in some other way instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 - the current implementation is specifically the result of profiling / perf optimizations and the observations that arrays are much faster collections as compared to sets / maps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense. Does that generally include traversing an array though ? If so we can just filter out duplicates first instead of constructing a set. What do you think ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Traversing isn't a problem. Filtering would be, though, as it would require creation of a new collection or shift elements in an array. More importantly, how would you eliminate duplicates without a set or sorting?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Something like
signals.filter(s => node.producerNode.includes(s)).forEach(producerAccessed)
should work ( or even just a for loop without creating a new array with the filter ). We are at O(n.m) though, since we "traverse" producerNode for each signal.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated in 0684e8a to use
.includes
instead. It's not the ideal option perf wise though. If we want better performance i think we should rethink theproducerNode
data structure all together. @littledan @pkozlowski-opensource what do you think ?