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

Non-allocating YieldSpec::try_from_str #31286

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 4, 2025

Conversation

antiguru
Copy link
Member

@antiguru antiguru commented Feb 4, 2025

Change try_from_str to not allocate. No behavior change, just noticed this looking at related code.

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. (trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs)
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • If this PR includes major user-facing behavior changes, I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post.

@antiguru antiguru requested a review from a team as a code owner February 4, 2025 12:33
Change `try_from_str` to not allocate. No behavior change, just noticed
this looking at related code.

Signed-off-by: Moritz Hoffmann <[email protected]>
@antiguru antiguru force-pushed the linear_join_spec_no_alloc branch from 4d0797f to d7f7dc1 Compare February 4, 2025 12:41
Copy link
Contributor

@teskje teskje left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

["work", amount] => {
let mut iter = option.split(':').map(|p| p.trim());
let parts : [_; 3]= std::array::from_fn(|_| iter.next());
match parts {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would match (iter.next(), iter.next(), iter.next()) { ... } also work?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but I figured we can inline parts, that's even less code :)

Signed-off-by: Moritz Hoffmann <[email protected]>
@antiguru antiguru enabled auto-merge (squash) February 4, 2025 12:56
@antiguru antiguru merged commit 4365ec9 into MaterializeInc:main Feb 4, 2025
78 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants