Use Builder directly instead of Put for serialization
#5919
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
`Put` is just an inefficient wrapper, and directly using `Builder` can make a big difference when serializing a lot of small things.
Contributor
|
Ah bummer slash cool. |
pchiusano
approved these changes
Oct 7, 2025
Going through list for the latter seems especially ill advised
Contributor
Author
|
Finally tracked down the compilation problem. I was serializing just the utf8 strings without their lengths for e.g. version when compiling. |
Became unused in the serialization rewrite, but remains potentially useful.
Contributor
Author
|
All base tests passed before the merge with trunk. Think this is ready to go. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 switches from using
Putin serialization to directly usingBuilder. The former is essentially just((), Builder), and I don't think that will get completely optimized away.In a microbenchmark, this was a massive difference (around 10x). However, for actual unison values, the difference seems much less significant. It's around 2x better on things like lists of pairs, or maps of numbers. I've been looking for some additional performance gain tweaks, but haven't found any yet.