-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
perf: Optimize lpad, rpad for ASCII strings #20278
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
Open
neilconway
wants to merge
1
commit into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
neilconway:neilc/optimize-lpad-rpad
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
+325
−51
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
Contributor
Author
|
Benchmark results: |
690f6b4 to
f3b449e
Compare
The previous implementation incurred the overhead of Unicode machinery,
even for the common case that both the input string and the fill string
consistent only of ASCII characters. For the ASCII-only case, we can
assume that the length in bytes equals the length in characters, and
avoid expensive graphene-based segmentation. This follows similar
optimizations applied elsewhere in the codebase.
Benchmarks indicate this is a significant performance win for ASCII-only
input (4x-10x faster) but only a mild regression for Unicode input (2-5%
slower).
Along the way:
* Combine: a few instances of `write_str(str)? + append_value("")` with
`append_value(str)`, which saves a few cycles
* Add a missing test case for truncating the input string
* Add benchmarks for Unicode input
f3b449e to
53b7236
Compare
martin-g
approved these changes
Feb 12, 2026
| argument(name = "n", description = "String length to pad to."), | ||
| argument( | ||
| name = "n", | ||
| description = "String length to pad to. If the input string is longer than this length, it is truncated." |
Member
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.
Suggested change
| description = "String length to pad to. If the input string is longer than this length, it is truncated." | |
| description = "String length to pad to. If the input string is longer than this length, it is truncated (on the left)." |
to be explicit, as in lpad.rs
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation
Improvements or additions to documentation
functions
Changes to functions implementation
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.
The previous implementation incurred the overhead of Unicode machinery, even for the common case that both the input string and the fill string consistent only of ASCII characters. For the ASCII-only case, we can assume that the length in bytes equals the length in characters, and avoid expensive graphene-based segmentation. This follows similar optimizations applied elsewhere in the codebase.
Benchmarks indicate this is a significant performance win for ASCII-only input (4x-10x faster) but only a mild regression for Unicode input (2-5% slower).
Along the way:
write_str(str)? + append_value("")withappend_value(str), which saves a few cyclesWhich issue does this PR close?
Are these changes tested?
Covered by existing tests. Added new benchmarks for Unicode inputs.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.