This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 11, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Optimize InefficientlyConvertToJS #820
Optimize InefficientlyConvertToJS #820
Changes from all commits
3c6d775
95f1ec2
4a0e429
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.
Hypothetically, these test values could skew the benchmark if the savings are considerably different for small number types compared to things like large strings. I think that it would be good to benchmark against arrays of asset data, big ints, or a mix of types that better describe our use case (like
zeroex.SignedOrder
).This is not to say that this benchmark is not useful. I just think that it would be good to have one more that is more tailored to our use-case.
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.
There's no single type that we could use here that would cover all the places we use
InefficientlyConvertToJS
throughout the codebase. The idea here is just to give us a decent idea of howInefficientlyConvertToJS
performs generally. Based on what I have seen so far, I think it is extremely unlikely that this change will makeInefficientlyConvertToJS
slower, no mater what type we are converting.If we have a need to optimize the encoding/conversion of a specific type (e.g. in the
db
package), we should just use a separate benchmark that looks at that type specifically.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 also think that’s unlikely. I think the real point is that we should have some benchmarks on more realistic benchmarks to see how much of a performance boost we get for Mesh specific use cases.