Inserter: Cache search normalization results #60080
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
tyxla
added
[Status] In Progress
|
Size Change: +1.3 kB (0%) Total Size: 1.72 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
mirka
reviewed
Mar 21, 2024
mirka
reviewed
Mar 22, 2024
jsnajdr
reviewed
Mar 24, 2024
jsnajdr
approved these changes
Mar 26, 2024
carstingaxion
pushed a commit
to carstingaxion/gutenberg
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2024
* Inserter: Cache search normalization results * Use separate objects for caching normalized data * Use maps for caching * Declare normalization regexes just once * Rename function as suggested Co-authored-by: tyxla <tyxla@git.wordpress.org> Co-authored-by: mirka <0mirka00@git.wordpress.org> Co-authored-by: Mamaduka <mamaduka@git.wordpress.org> Co-authored-by: jsnajdr <jsnajdr@git.wordpress.org>
cbravobernal
pushed a commit
to garridinsi/gutenberg
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 9, 2024
* Inserter: Cache search normalization results * Use separate objects for caching normalized data * Use maps for caching * Declare normalization regexes just once * Rename function as suggested Co-authored-by: tyxla <tyxla@git.wordpress.org> Co-authored-by: mirka <0mirka00@git.wordpress.org> Co-authored-by: Mamaduka <mamaduka@git.wordpress.org> Co-authored-by: jsnajdr <jsnajdr@git.wordpress.org>
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.
What?
We're adding some internal cache to the internal inserter search input normalization functions.
Why?
During a single search, we'll call each of these functions hundreds of times, with the same input and the same output.
Internally, both of them will do some string manipulation, including regex search and replace, and there's no need to run it every time when we can only run it once per session.
Although I don't aim for any visible performance improvements, in my local testing, this saves a few ms (5ms on average) for every inserter search. Even if it saves 1 ms, that would still be an improvement of over 10% for each inserter search, so it's worth trying out.
Performance tests seem to indicate a very slight improvement to the inserter search metrics:
however, I usually don't trust them that much, as the demonstrated difference is within the expected noise levels.
How?
We're targeting
extractWordsandnormalizeSearchInputsince they're both internal, private functions.~For both of them, we're caching the normalization / extraction results in the function object itself, since that way, we don't need to create an extra object for the cache. ~
IMHO that's fine to do since those functions are private for the inserter search items module.
Testing Instructions
Testing Instructions for Keyboard
None
Screenshots or screencast
None