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

chore: Use HashMap instead of BTreeMap for storing fields by id in StructType #14

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 30, 2023

Conversation

amogh-jahagirdar
Copy link
Contributor

This change updates the id_lookup table in StructType to be a HashMap implementation instead of BTreeMap. Since there won't be a need to do min/max or any kind of ordering, a BTreeMap shouldn't be necessary, and lookups for a field based on id can just be done in O(1).

cc: @JanKaul @Xuanwo @Fokko

Copy link
Member

@Xuanwo Xuanwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@liurenjie1024 liurenjie1024 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks

Copy link
Contributor

@Fokko Fokko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would also lean towards a HashMap. Probably this is also more memory efficient (fewer pointers than with a BTree).

Don't worry, we're going to use the BTree when we're digging into SequenceNumbers

Copy link
Contributor

@ZENOTME ZENOTME left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Thanks!

@amogh-jahagirdar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for all the reviews @Fokko @Xuanwo @ZENOTME @liurenjie1024. Since there's a few approvals and it's small change, I'll be merging.

@amogh-jahagirdar amogh-jahagirdar merged commit 831e93c into apache:main Jul 30, 2023
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.

5 participants