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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Implement clone_from for BTreeMap and BTreeSet #66648
Implement clone_from for BTreeMap and BTreeSet #66648
Changes from 4 commits
293cdf7
f547978
8651aa0
3caa17b
60a7c94
81b6f8c
6c3e477
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I feel that a lot of duplicate work being done here. We first find the nth key, the pass it to
split_off
so that it can find the position of that key (again!), after which it actually splits the tree. Would it be possible to avoid doing the key lookup twice?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.
Not that I can see, unfortunately! However,
split_off
doesn't exactly find the key and then split the tree. Becausesplit_off
has a target key, it can split the tree as it's searching for the key position on the edges it descends on. In theory it would be better to have asplit_after
function that splits off the first n keys, but in practice theBTree
doesn't have any subtree size information available (and traverses the whole tree every time it needs to recalculate length as a result). Similarly, it would definitely be more efficient ifnth
was specialized forBTree
iterators, but I don't see an easy way to do that. Please let me know if you have any ideas about how to avoid iterating through (up to) half the tree!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.
My point is that you are traversing the tree twice: once in the
nth
call in the iterator, and once insplit_off
. However fixing this is likely to be very complicated, so it's fine to leave it as it is for now.