-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Speed up Traverser and cut about 30 lines of code.
When stacked against the unsubmitted Walker, before the change: breadthFirst was roughly on par; preOrder/postOrder were about 70% slower (1359 vs. 2358); After adopting the Walker impl, the tree traversal preorder/postorder are improved close to Walker impl. There is still about 10% slowness (2405 vs. 2268) remaining, which I suspect is due to Iterator being slower than Spliterator, because with Spliterator, we can tryAdvance() once for each element, while with Iterator, we have to call both hasNext() and next(). The graph traversal adoption is similar, with about 15% remaining slowness compared to Walker (1583 vs. 1338), which is likely result of Spliterator.tryAdvance() vs. Iterator.hasNext() + next(). Did not adopt the Walker's breadth-first impl for the following reasons: 1. Adopting the Walker's breadth-first impl contributed about 10% slowdown compared to the current impl. I think this is likely due to the eager foreach loop of the successors in the current breadth-first iterator. In the full traversal benchmark, it's likely faster than consuming the successor iterator lazily. On the other hand, the breadth-first iterator is inconsistent with the depth-first iterators that consume the successor iterators lazily. For follow-up: It might be better to go complete lazy for breadth-first, even at the cost of 10% slowdown in the full-traversal benchmark. Plus we can reuse code and delete the two existing BreadthFirstIterator classes. I'm going to add the benchmark class in the the labs directory to compare between Iteration and Traverser. RELNOTES=Optimize Traverser ------------- Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=320688457
- Loading branch information
1 parent
a47ab01
commit b5210ca
Showing
4 changed files
with
196 additions
and
242 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
b5210ca
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍