-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 130
fix: Builder ensure_capacity is now reserve_exact to acquire additional and not total capacity #4962
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
Conversation
… not total capacity Signed-off-by: Robert Kruszewski <github@robertk.io>
b7c363e to
f9ae7d3
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
0ax1
left a comment
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.
Looks good. Giving it a benchmark run just now to see whether this leads to regressions.
Benchmarks: Random AccessSummary
|
Benchmarks: FineWebSummary
Detailed Results Table
|
Benchmarks: TPC-H SF=1 on NVMESummary
Detailed Results Table
|
Benchmarks: TPC-H SF=1 on S3Summary
Detailed Results Table
|
|
The only practical difference is that we might be doing two capacity checks in some cases instead. We should rename this function to reserve exact |
Benchmarks: TPC-H SF=10 on NVMESummary
Detailed Results Table
|
Benchmarks: CompressionSummary
Detailed Results Table
|
Benchmarks: Statistical and Population GeneticsSummary
Detailed Results Table
|
I was thinking about the case that calling |
Benchmarks: TPC-H SF=10 on S3Summary
Detailed Results Table
|
|
Our buffer checks the capacity just like arrow Booleanbuffer |
Benchmarks: TPC-DS SF=1 on NVMESummary
Detailed Results Table
|
Benchmarks: Clickbench on NVMESummary
Detailed Results Table
|
Is annoyingly just benchmark noise. |
fix #4958
Signed-off-by: Robert Kruszewski github@robertk.io