-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
tickets/DM-51870 #964
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
tickets/DM-51870 #964
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since you already have a complete JSON object to be added to the collection then it should be
push_back. Methodemplace_backis used for constructing new objects during insert. Here is an example:Method
std::vector::emplace_backis conceptually likestd::make_shared. For example:The second method invokes the constructor of
Pointand passes 3 parameters to the constructor.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's all true, and I changed it to push_back, but as far as I know, using push_back is no more efficient than emplace_back in this case. After a little looking around, the it seems push_back may compile slightly faster than emplace_back. Otherwise, if there is a constructor that can build the object directly on container, emplace_back will be faster. So, there doesn't seem to be any real harm using emplace_back in this case, or am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should construct a new json object directly in the jsqFrags json object thanks to RVO.
jsqFrags.emplace_back(jFrag->toJson());while this may a new object and then move it.
jsqFrags.push_back(jFrag->toJson());emplace_backshould really be a bit faster.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Performance-wise, and in this particular case, both methods should be the same. My comment was mostly about the semantic differences of the operations. I'm not really insisting on any changes here.