GetWriteTaskAsync often completes synchronously #36126
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Therzok
approved these changes
Jun 3, 2019
This change produced a 595MB (8.3%) allocation reduction in the scenario described by dotnet#36114.
sharwell
force-pushed
the
valuetask-writes
branch
from
3d0d9a4 to
7678110
Compare
src/Workspaces/Core/Portable/Storage/SQLite/SQLitePersistentStorage_WriteBatching.cs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
CyrusNajmabadi
approved these changes
Jun 3, 2019
Member
CyrusNajmabadi
left a comment
CyrusNajmabadi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approve
Submit feedback approving these changes.
mavasani
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2019
genlu
reviewed
Jun 5, 2019
src/Workspaces/Core/Portable/Storage/SQLite/SQLitePersistentStorage_WriteBatching.cs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 change produced a 595MB (8.3%) allocation reduction in the scenario described by #36114.