Sort out happy flows for fastest execution for expected types #786
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
* double for GetDouble * float for GetFloat * decimal for GetDecimal Signed-off-by: Daniel Cohen Gindi <[email protected]>
danielgindi
force-pushed
the
perf/happy_flow
branch
from
f7f721e to
dbc2d19
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I set up a fiddle https://dotnetfiddle.net/ZIoKbK to demonstrate the performance differences.
This shows that for the "happy flow" the current implementation is slower by almost 100% than the suggested one.
In int types this is already sorted out.
This avoids the use of the ternary operator, which results in perceived more lines of code, but clearer execution path and more consistent with the implementation of
GetInt__.