Improve performance of position map computation#232
Merged
Conversation
08419a0 to
b203a8f
Compare
denismerigoux
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2026
b203a8f to
ed2dad4
Compare
ed2dad4 to
1ba53ca
Compare
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 PR reworks and cleans up the position map structure used to handle hovering queries among others.
After a lot of algorithmic head scratches, the most reasonable solution was, instead of building incrementally, to actually accumulate elements before building the tree in one go. Indeed, we (mostly) insert in surface's position order and, as I encoded the tree as a list (still banging my head on a wall in order to replace that, btw), starting from the last handled element would actually prevent a quadratic factor as we don't have to scan through the whole list each time to insert in the correct position.
This behavior wasn't obvious under normal circumstances (i.e., "normal" size documents) but on extreme examples, we notice an improvement in execution time from >15s to 500ms.