Skip to content
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

Optimize BitPat equals, overlap, and cover (backport #3285) #3287

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 18, 2023

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented May 17, 2023

This is an automatic backport of pull request #3285 done by Mergify.


Mergify commands and options

More conditions and actions can be found in the documentation.

You can also trigger Mergify actions by commenting on this pull request:

  • @Mergifyio refresh will re-evaluate the rules
  • @Mergifyio rebase will rebase this PR on its base branch
  • @Mergifyio update will merge the base branch into this PR
  • @Mergifyio backport <destination> will backport this PR on <destination> branch

Additionally, on Mergify dashboard you can:

  • look at your merge queues
  • generate the Mergify configuration with the config editor.

Finally, you can contact us on https://mergify.com


Original PR Body

I also added some focused tests.

I am making this change because I noticed slow performance for a TruthTable that has 65k entries. The performance of just == on that TruthTable was pretty bad. Note that == for BitSet uses cover, so I first optimized that, then went ahead and also optimized equals, and then overlap was free so did that too. See benchmark for equality of two copies of a TruthTable with 65k entries:

Change Runtime Speedup over Baseline
Baseline 68 ms -
Optimize cover 3.9 ms 17x
Optimize equals 1.3 ms 52x

There are other improvements to be made, but this is pretty good and constrained.

Contributor Checklist

  • Did you add Scaladoc to every public function/method?
  • Did you add at least one test demonstrating the PR?
  • Did you delete any extraneous printlns/debugging code?
  • Did you specify the type of improvement?
  • Did you add appropriate documentation in docs/src?
  • Did you request a desired merge strategy?
  • Did you add text to be included in the Release Notes for this change?

Type of Improvement

  • Performance improvement

Desired Merge Strategy

  • Squash: The PR will be squashed and merged (choose this if you have no preference).

Release Notes

Reviewer Checklist (only modified by reviewer)

  • Did you add the appropriate labels? (Select the most appropriate one based on the "Type of Improvement")
  • Did you mark the proper milestone (Bug fix: 3.5.x or 3.6.x depending on impact, API modification or big change: 5.0.0)?
  • Did you review?
  • Did you check whether all relevant Contributor checkboxes have been checked?
  • Did you do one of the following when ready to merge:
    • Squash: You/ the contributor Enable auto-merge (squash), clean up the commit message, and label with Please Merge.
    • Merge: Ensure that contributor has cleaned up their commit history, then merge with Create a merge commit.

@mergify mergify bot added the Backport Automated backport, please consider for minor release label May 17, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the Performance Improves performance, will be included in release notes label May 17, 2023
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 1313ada into 3.6.x May 18, 2023
@mergify mergify bot deleted the mergify/bp/3.6.x/pr-3285 branch May 18, 2023 22:01
@sequencer sequencer mentioned this pull request Jun 20, 2023
14 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Backport Automated backport, please consider for minor release Performance Improves performance, will be included in release notes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant