Remove bottlenecks for styler #348
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #348 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.43% 91.61% +4.18%
==========================================
Files 24 23 -1
Lines 1122 1050 -72
==========================================
- Hits 981 962 -19
+ Misses 141 88 -53
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Ok cool. Need to check how much performance styler gains through these optimizations. |
R/tbl-df.r
Outdated
| if (!exact) { | ||
| warningc("exact ignored") | ||
| } | ||
| if (missing(j)) { | ||
| return(unclass(x)[[i]]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lionel-: Is there a helper for unclass(x))[[i]] in rlang?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not yet, maybe you can use .subset2()?
|
I just ran |
|
I'm thinking that the purrr compats should use purrr's C implementation to avoid the slowdown. It doesn't cost a lot to compile a little embedded C file. |
|
Maybe move the elementary purrr functions to rlang, CC @hadley? I've seen some slowdown due to rlang's very careful input checking. I'm really looking forward to the C implementation of the |
|
sorry, it's planned but I haven't had time to do it yet :( Expression capture and interpolation got a lot faster though, and I'll finish porting |
|
Most of rlang will be implemented in C eventually. |
|
Thanks for the heads up, I really appreciate your work on rlang! |
|
Cool 😊 |
|
Should we require a minimal version of tibble for styler to make sure the speed improvements take effect? Probably not, right? |
|
I think it's reasonable to require it |
|
I'm using |
Now running ~3x faster on the tidyr package (60s -> 20s), CC @lorenzwalthert.