Skip to content

perf: simplify comparison workflows - #1

Merged
vriesd merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
perf/simplify-comparison-workflows
Sep 8, 2026
Merged

vriesd merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
perf/simplify-comparison-workflows

Conversation

@vriesd

@vriesd vriesd commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary\n- eliminate duplicate CSV metadata work and centralize frontend workflow ownership\n- preserve flexible matching semantics with bounded incremental selection\n- make retained-session budget admission atomic and page result rendering\n\n## Verification\n- cargo fmt --check && cargo test && cargo clippy -- -D warnings\n- npm test && npm run build\n- (cd src-tauri && cargo fmt --check && cargo test)

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-08T16:51:28.129607Z fa6adc5 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: fa6adc5f7b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread src/comparison/engine.rs Outdated
Comment on lines 157 to 162
for row_index in nullish_rows_a {
push_unkeyed_right(&mut results, row_index, &context);
}

for row_index in nullish_rows_b {
push_unkeyed_left(&mut results, row_index, &context);
}

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Check candidate limits before materializing unkeyed rows

When flexible matching has a candidate set over 10,000 but a key-pair product below 1,000,000 (for example, the existing dense 101×101 case), the candidate-limit error is now detected only inside compare_key_groups_flexible, after these loops have built results for every nullish row. A CSV containing many empty keys can therefore allocate a large result vector before returning the validation error that previously occurred before result generation; prepare/check the flexible candidates before materializing unkeyed results. This affects both runtimes because the comparison engine belongs to their shared library.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L4-L4

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Resolved by the rebase onto current main: ComparisonPlan::build now surveys flexible candidates before execute emits any nullish/unkeyed rows, and run_comparison returns the recorded excess before calling plan.execute.

@vriesd
vriesd force-pushed the perf/simplify-comparison-workflows branch from fa6adc5 to e1b4fa4 Compare September 8, 2026 16:54
@vriesd
vriesd force-pushed the perf/simplify-comparison-workflows branch from e1b4fa4 to 65a062d Compare September 8, 2026 16:58
@vriesd
vriesd merged commit 60dc8b3 into main Sep 8, 2026
7 checks passed
@vriesd
vriesd deleted the perf/simplify-comparison-workflows branch September 8, 2026 17:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants