You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 31, 2023. It is now read-only.
I'm wondering if we shouldn't be passing the ets table to reporters instead of a list of every element and create a new table instead of deleting all the objects.
Creating ets tables is cheap and it should save on memory and gc'ing to do this.
We really need some benchmarks to keep a baseline..
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Question is how it will work with many reporters. Which one will be responsible for removing old table. I would keep API as is because it is simpler, and I do not believe that this will improve the performance by noticeable factor.
None of the reporters would be, it would work the same as today, the central reporting process does the deleting. It just happens when the reporter handler is done.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
I'm wondering if we shouldn't be passing the ets table to reporters instead of a list of every element and create a new table instead of deleting all the objects.
Creating ets tables is cheap and it should save on memory and gc'ing to do this.
We really need some benchmarks to keep a baseline..
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: