-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
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
[EventHubs] check for any non-None values in amqp header/properties #27444
Merged
swathipil
merged 2 commits into
Azure:feature/eventhub/pyproto
from
swathipil:swathipil/eh/update-amqp-prop-header
Nov 16, 2022
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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 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 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 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
@annatisch -
I tried the following options:
I timed the above with different
a
values. Here's a sample of respective times using timeit (with 1000000 executions *100):Adding an
_any
method seems to be the most readable I think.It's the fastest for a1 and 2. Even when it's slower for a3, it's still faster than the baseline
any()
. (I can run the perf test on this PR as well.)Thoughts?
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.
Awesome stuff! Thanks so much for doing this analysis :)
It's probably worth noting that from a perf perspective - calling a standalone function is not exactly the same as calling an object method - however I expect the difference to be pretty minimal - and even if it's not - we could always just use a standalone function for this as well.
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.
ah gotcha. Based on what you said, I just tested calling AmqpMessageProperties, just to double check the speed of method vs. function vs. other calls. In general, it looks like 3. is consistently the fastest.
This is the result of grabbing the min of timeit.repeat.
Esp in the case of all values being None, 3. is the only one that is faster than the baseline. Based on this switching to using solution 3. Any concerns?