-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
fix: check for duplicates in keyword validate #14585
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
fix: check for duplicates in keyword validate #14585
Conversation
defp validate([], values1, values2, acc, []) do | ||
{:ok, move_pairs!(values1, move_pairs!(values2, acc))} | ||
list = move_pairs!(values1, move_pairs!(values2, acc)) | ||
|
||
{has_duplicate, duplicate_key} = find_duplicate_keys(list) | ||
|
||
if has_duplicate do | ||
{:error, [duplicate_key]} | ||
else | ||
{:ok, list} | ||
end | ||
end |
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.
@josevalim I've put a benchmark in the PR description which I think is encouraging.
If it makes sense to move forward with this solution I'll add doctests in validate/2 and validate!/2
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.
I'm re-running benchmarks because I realized I was testing 2 very close cases due to alphabetical ordering.
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.
With the updated results it's clear that there is an impact in checking the duplicates.
I did get bitten in production by this, so perhaps we could introduce validate/3 in the worst case scenario where there's an opt-in flag for this check
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.
I wonder if there's a more optimal version possible by merging the functionallity of move_pairs! and find_duplicate_keys in 1.
It's going to probably be more complex, but maybe a bit more efficient?
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.
I thought about adding a map of key => frequency to move pairs, initialized to the equivalent value from acc
Then at the end of move pairs, just traverse that and return the keys with count > 1
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.
@josevalim @tcoopman I updated the benchmark with a compiled module (also attached in the PR body).
I didn't have much luck with getting results as good as the ones without the validation. In absolute time it's not much of a difference, but it's a very significative ratio
The benchmark has evaluation warnings. Can you make sure to move all benchmarking code to a module and then call it instead? Thanks! |
closes #14584
I've run benchmarks with Benchee, results below. Unfortunately, it seems that as the lists grow bigger, the execution time difference becomes very significative. The test cases are very artificial, but the impact is there.
in the benchmark, Keyword.validate is the version included in this PR,
while the other 2 versions are in the module below: