Repository navigation
perfomrance(queue): eliminate O(N) intermediate slice allocation in Copy() - #67
Merged
zyedidia merged 1 commit intoOct 15, 2026
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Hey, @zyedidia! Can you please review this PR. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 optimizes the
Queue.Copy()method by iterating directly over the underlying list instead of usingq.PeekAll().The Fix:
By using
q.Each()to iterate and enqueue directly into the new queue, we bypass the slice allocation entirely, reducing auxiliary space from O(N) to O(1).Performance Impact:
Benchmarking
Copy()on a queue of 10,000 integers shows a 25% reduction in memory overhead and a ~10% speedup:Before:
After:
Testing:
go test ./queue/...passesgo fmtappliedCloses #66