colblk: store shared and bundle prefix length #3878
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
|
This change is |
We currently store the shared prefix length and bundle length separately and have to add them every time we move to a new key. We switch to storing their sum.
RaduBerinde
force-pushed
the
colblk-next-opt
branch
from
f143a38 to
fb5a8e0
Compare
jbowens
approved these changes
Aug 22, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good idea!
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 of 12 files reviewed, all discussions resolved
|
TFTR! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR is only for the last commit.
colblk: store shared and bundle prefix length
We currently store the shared prefix length and bundle length
separately and have to add them every time we move to a new key. We
switch to storing their sum.
Together with #3877, #3869, #3872 we get about 15-20% improvement on Next benchmarks and are now ~on par with the row iterator.
Full results on AMD64 (Ryzen 9):
https://gist.github.com/RaduBerinde/d94b28f87943d9258f950c8588cb6a98