Open rudyflores opened 9 months ago
Thank you for raising this enhancement request. The community has 90 days to vote on it. If the enhancement receives at least 10 upvotes, it is added to our development backlog. If it receives fewer votes, the issue is closed.
Thank you for raising this enhancement request. The community has 90 days to vote on it. If the enhancement receives at least 10 upvotes, it is added to our development backlog. If it receives fewer votes, the issue is closed.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently the Persistent object stores the following items as arrays, which can be inneficient if we decided to go ahead with #2677 and potentially have several items in our history view for performing CRUD operations.
Describe the solution you'd like
This could be optimized through the use of a hashmap, a good example of a benefit of this could be the
searchHistory
, if we store the values as in a key/value pair structure we could have stuff such as the timestamp in the value for each item as well and allow O(1) access for users on a Persistent object containing 1000+ items inside vs an array having to search for that item.Describe alternatives you've considered
Currently there is no workaround, since the current code uses arrays at a fixed index of 5 items which do not introduce a problem unless we decided to have this unbounded in the future.
Additional context