Fix some inefficiencies in FieldsVisitor #127688
Merged
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
Just a couple obvious finds. No need to start from `null` here, just makes locality worse to so and adds conditionals. Also, we can save some field lookups and a needless hot allocation of `BytesRef` that isn't guaranteed to be escape analyzed away.
original-brownbear
added
>non-issue
:Search Foundations/Search
elasticsearchmachine
added
v9.1.0
Team:Search Foundations
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-search-foundations (Team:Search Foundations) |
original-brownbear
added
auto-backport
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks Dimitris! |
Collaborator
💚 Backport successful
|
original-brownbear
added a commit
to original-brownbear/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2025
Just a couple obvious finds. No need to start from `null` here, just makes locality worse to so and adds conditionals. Also, we can save some field lookups and a needless hot allocation of `BytesRef` that isn't guaranteed to be escape analyzed away.
ywangd
pushed a commit
to ywangd/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2025
Just a couple obvious finds. No need to start from `null` here, just makes locality worse to so and adds conditionals. Also, we can save some field lookups and a needless hot allocation of `BytesRef` that isn't guaranteed to be escape analyzed away.
jfreden
pushed a commit
to jfreden/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
May 12, 2025
Just a couple obvious finds. No need to start from `null` here, just makes locality worse to so and adds conditionals. Also, we can save some field lookups and a needless hot allocation of `BytesRef` that isn't guaranteed to be escape analyzed away.
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2025
* Fix some inefficiencies in FieldsVisitor (#127688) Just a couple obvious finds. No need to start from `null` here, just makes locality worse to so and adds conditionals. Also, we can save some field lookups and a needless hot allocation of `BytesRef` that isn't guaranteed to be escape analyzed away. * update code after backporting from 9.0 --------- Co-authored-by: Dimitris Rempapis <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Stanislav Malyshev <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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.
Just a couple obvious finds. No need to start from
nullhere, just makes locality worse to so and adds conditionals. Also, we can save some field lookups and a needless hot allocation ofBytesRefthat isn't guaranteed to be escape analyzed away.