From: Chris Sosnin <k.sosnin@tarantool.org>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] box: add binary search for _session_settings space
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:04:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B7B9954B-54F4-4F3D-95EC-191724C0D6D3@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <77348412-c9ac-54e7-2997-f9b2a2a9e0cb@tarantool.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1887 bytes --]
Hi! Thank you for the review and your fixes!
See my answers below.
> 3. I would rather say to '*an* existing'. Because there is no a one
> certain setting to which all the iterators point after setting that
> flag.
Thank you, I agree.
> 4. Even though that bsearch passes the tests, I failed to understand
> it. Please, consider a more canonical bsearch on the branch in a
> separate commit. Feel free to comment, if someone catches your attention
> in my version and you don't agree.
Your version is better, I agree, my code just implements lower/upper bound,
but there is no point in it, because all settings are unique. Thanks!
>> + if (low < count) {
>> + int cmp = strcmp(name[low], key);
>> + if ((cmp == 0 && is_including) ||
>> + (cmp > 0 && !is_eq)) {
>> + *sid = low;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> 5. This last strcmp can be avoided. Or at least
> moved into the cycle. See my commit.
>
> All the same about 'reverse' version.
I believe with your fixes it doesn’t really matter anymore.
>
> 6. What I don't like here is that we check is_set as many times,
> as many modules we have. Moreover, if set_forward didn't find
> anything, you fallback to a fullscan in that module, even though
> it wont find anything with 100% guarantee.
>
> I fixed it, see my commit.
The thing is that if set_forward fails, then sid = count and next_in_module
will immediately return -1. But if we are going to remove modules, then this
part will be rewritten anyway.
> I fixed settings tests also - there was no a check that
> real settings space, and a user defined one return the same tuple count. It
> could happen, that one of them returns 0 tuples, and it would be considered
> success.
>
> Additionally, I added a test, which tries all existing iterators on every
> setting.
Thanks, I agree with those.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20312 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-25 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-19 20:18 Chris Sosnin
2020-01-25 0:19 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-01-25 7:04 ` Chris Sosnin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=B7B9954B-54F4-4F3D-95EC-191724C0D6D3@tarantool.org \
--to=k.sosnin@tarantool.org \
--cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
--cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
--subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] box: add binary search for _session_settings space' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox