Preallocate property tables during deserialization #464
Conversation
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
Dekkonot
reviewed
Oct 29, 2024
Co-authored-by: Micah <[email protected]>
Dekkonot
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR adds a new method
InstanceBuilder::with_property_capacitywhich can preallocatesInstanceBuilder.properties, and makes the rbx_xml and rbx_binary deserializers use it. Since we know how many properties any given instance will (likely) contain via the reflection database, this allows us to avoid resizes during deserialization.On my machine, this improves rbx_binary's "Deserialize 10,000 Parts" benchmark by ~17%, and reduces the number of heap allocations by ~32%.
The fact that we're using the database's default properties to determine the capacity is a little hairy - we've discussed normalizing default properties in the database in #418, so we should remain mindful of this optimization, lest we inadvertently regress performance.