Hi,
So the one thing I just copied into TINKERPOP-1372 was your
ImmutablePath.currentLabels = currentLabels (vs. copying the set). You are
right, step labels are immutable and thus, there is no need to copy the set
over — a direct reference is sufficient. Regarding the
AbstractStep.traverserSt
The branch is TINKERPOP-1404
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/commit/c1556fe82c58527dc4425d23d1d69ce324e62cfa
Cheers
Pieter
On 01/11/2016 15:23, Marko Rodriguez wrote:
> What branch are you in? Perhaps give me URLs (to GitHub) to the files
> touched? (if its not too many)
>
> Marko.
>
> http:
What branch are you in? Perhaps give me URLs (to GitHub) to the files touched?
(if its not too many)
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:19 AM, pieter-gmail wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes I am but afraid I do not have time at present to concentrate on it.
> I just noticed your
Hi,
Yes I am but afraid I do not have time at present to concentrate on it.
I just noticed your ImmutablePath ticket which will overlap with some of
what I have done.
I'd suggest to pull my branch and look at what I did there. It was very
little, but dangerous code, which is why I was reluctant t
Hi Pieter,
I’m still really interested in your work in this area. Are you still doing this?
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
> On Aug 7, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Pieter Martin wrote:
>
> To avoid the collection logic alltogether. For most steps there is no need to
> check the labels as it is known
To avoid the collection logic alltogether. For most steps there is no need to
check the labels as it is known that they are added, immutable and correct.
Also with the current strategy the `ImmutablePath.currentLabels` is exactly the
same collection as that of the step. It is not a copy.
`Traver
Why not just check to see if the labels to be added already exist, if they do,
don’t addLabels() and thus, don’t create a new collection.
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
> On Aug 7, 2016, at 6:07 AM, Pieter Martin wrote:
>
> Here is what I have come up with so far.
>
> The idea is that `T
Here is what I have come up with so far.
The idea is that `Traverser.split(r, step)` already copies the labels to the
traverser so there is no need to call `Traverser.addLabels(labels)` again.
I removed the `Traverser.addLabels(labels)` call from `AbstractStep`.
For the traversers that do not ca
Neat find Pieter. With regards to the update to ImmutablePath, I think
that defensive copying of inbound collections is generally a good idea but
if we can target specific areas where we can reap big gains from not
creating new collections it may be worth it to relax that constraint,
especially if
Hello,
This is cool. Check out also ImmutablePath.extend(labels) as that is ultimately
what Traverser.addLabels() calls. We have a lot of set copying and I don’t know
if its needed (as you seem to be demonstrating). What I don’t like about your
solution is the explicit reference to the B_L_P…Tr
Sorry forgot to add a rather important part.
I changed ImmutablePath's constructor to
private ImmutablePath(final ImmutablePathImpl previousPath, final
Object currentObject, final Set currentLabels) {
this.previousPath = previousPath;
this.currentObject = currentObject;
Hi,
I have been optimizing Sqlg of late and eventually arrived at TinkerPop
code.
The gremlin in particular that I am interested is path queries.
Here is the test that I am running in jmh.
//@Setup
Vertex a = graph.addVertex(T.label, "A", "name", "a1");
for (int i = 1; i
12 matches
Mail list logo