🐛 Use Range#size vs Range#count for uid-set limit
#411
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
Prior to ruby 3.3, `Range#count` is handled by `Enumerable#count`, even for numeric ranges. For large ranges, `Range#size` is _significantly_ faster. On my system, ruby 3.2 took 54 seconds (at 100% CPU) to run `(1...2**32).count`. Thanks to @xiaoge1001 for reporting this issue (#410).
nevans
added
bug
nevans
changed the title
Range#size vs Range#count for uid-set limit
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
(This PR is for
v0.3-stable. v0.4 and v0.5 are unaffected.)Prior to ruby 3.3,
Range#countis handled byEnumerable#count, even for numeric ranges. For large ranges,Range#sizeis significantly faster. On my system, ruby 3.1 and 3.2 both took ~54 seconds (at 100% CPU) to run(1...2**32).count.Range#countfor numeric ranges is fast under ruby 3.3 and 3.4.Thanks to @xiaoge1001 for reporting this issue (Fixes #410).