opt_merge: hashing performance and correctness #4677
Draft
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is a direct remake of #4175 sans the 64-bit hash value. I'm making use of the interface in #4524 and requiring that PR (and containing its commits at the moment). Instead of xorshifts, values are sorted, though a final xorshift is included as a part of the fudge (
--hash-seed=N) mechanism.Additionally, I discovered opt_merge behaves incorrectly in the case of hash collisions. This suggests that this PR might in rare cases bring improvements in quality of results for flows that use opt_merge, since prior to it, hash collisions would inhibit merging. I modified the
sharemapfrom adict<hash_t, Cell*>to an equivalentstd::unordered_multimapso that multiple cells can be associated with the same hash. This can't be a separate change since this bug actually broke the build just by changing how the hashes are constructed.Sorry for the spam to code owners due to being based on the above mentioned wide-reaching PR #4524, I don't have a way of removing you from the reviewer list. The diff for this PR is not going to be very readable on github either until that's merged