Closed tarekgh closed 4 months ago
Attention: Patch coverage is 71.42857%
with 8 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 68.83%. Comparing base (
34eb579
) to head (0f27782
).
I see - we encode the final total capacity required to reduce allocations. I take it this creates a steady-state smaller size to the collection which is what we're after.
Is there any benefit in further reducing the allocation cost of loading the files - or are we OK with that since it's a local peak that'll get reclaimed by GC?
Is there any benefit in further reducing the allocation cost of loading the files - or are we OK with that since it's a local peak that'll get reclaimed by GC?
I think this is something we can look more later to see if we can reduce the allocation more but I am not seeing this is pressing issue that we need to address it now.
CC @ericstj