-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
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
perf, memory: Improve performance and memory use for large datasets #5927
Open
mleibman-db
wants to merge
10
commits into
TanStack:main
Choose a base branch
from
mleibman-db:main
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+438
−348
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
73a6b1e
improve performance and memory use
mleibman-db 0cc9f19
lazy-init optional instance values
mleibman-db 3ff5df9
remove test code
mleibman-db a964f41
ci: apply automated fixes
autofix-ci[bot] 24710f8
removed unused wip code
mleibman-db 0769660
make typing more explicit and make 'subRows' safer
mleibman-db 3620a00
make memo() more self-consistent
mleibman-db aa518e9
fix a bug in lazy-init
mleibman-db fdc1771
bug fixes
mleibman-db 9cf94c1
ci: apply automated fixes
autofix-ci[bot] File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
In the core
createRow
function, we still call thesefeature.createRow
functions if they exist, passing them the row and table instance. That should prevent breaking changes for existing custom features, but we may want to recommend custom features to take the same approach (i.e. extend the prototype). @KevinVandy what do you think about this?I haven't thought all the details through but something like retaining a
createRow
function in each feature, and in the corecreateRow
function both calling thefeature.createRow
function with the row and table instances (to prevent breaking changes for existing custom features), and also merging its prototype onto the corecreateRow
prototype.That way we could also retain the
createRow
functions in the core features, (just move the methods onto the prototype), and wouldn't need thegetRowProto
andObject.assign()
approach I think.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.
+1 to generally recommending people use the same approach for implementing custom features. I considered making things more explicit by adding methods like
initRowProto()
toTableFeature
interface, but decided against it for simplicity's sake, plus this is more of an internal implementation detail than a public API.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.
This kind of pattern will be useful to think about in the alpha branch though