Consider pooling of table classes (and more?)

Question

Consider pooling of table classes (and more?)

hassila opened this issue 8 years ago · comments

As @mzaks wrote in #37:

Makes me wonder if somehow pooling all Table classes and Lazy accessors is a good idea

I think replicating the create/reset/reuse (recycle?) for a small (preferably tunable "none/small/medium/large") number of instances could be extremely beneficial and worth trying out. For streaming applications with very repeatable data flows it could give a very significant boost.

Joakim Hassila · Answer 1 · Sun May 08 2016 04:59:04 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

The big issue is when to actually recycle instances - I wrote up a small generic pool and this turned out to be non-obvious when to recycle them. For Builder where we have tight control on usage and lifespan it is easier... Essentially we would want to put them there in deinit {}, but that is too late...

Maxim Zaks · Answer 2 · Sun May 08 2016 05:08:17 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I thought about using retainCount but it might be also not a good idea.

Joakim Hassila · Answer 3 · Mon May 09 2016 04:02:18 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Did a first take in #43 - isUniquelyReferencedNonObjC() came handy.

Joakim Hassila · Answer 4 · Mon May 09 2016 12:48:31 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

One big note - the current instance pooling is inherently not thread safe, should address it before closing this one.

Joakim Hassila · Answer 5 · Mon May 09 2016 14:05:49 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

See #44, closing this one and following up there.