[perf] Manually implement firstIndex(where:) in ByteBufferView
#3412
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
MahdiBM
force-pushed
the
mmbm-first-index
branch
from
9cb7e26 to
7636f18
Compare
glbrntt
approved these changes
Oct 17, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Motivation:
ByteBuffer.firsIndexis of suboptimal performance.The default Collection implementations don't go through any "magic underscored" functions like
_customIndexOfEquatableElement.Modifications:
Manually implement
firstIndex(where:).Result:
Basically free performance boost. 2x+ boost even for not big buffers of a few hundred bytes.
There are some usage of this function in
BufferedReader. Those will become much faster.Also this function is used in
ByteBufferView.trim(limitingElements:).Also makes #3411 stuff faster. See: #3411 (comment)