Another template tokenizer implementation#2071
Open
jg-rp wants to merge 1 commit intoShopify:mainfrom
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This pull request demonstrates an alternative template tokenizer implementation.
Like the tokenizer from #2056, we use
String#getbyte,String#byteindexandString#bytesliceinstead of aStringScanner.On an M2 Mac Mini, running
PHASE=tokenize bundle exec rake benchmark:strict2gives:The same benchmark for Liquid v5.12.0:
And for #2056:
Unlike v5.12.0 and #2056, the tokenizer in this PR also outperforms the old splitting regex approach from v5.6.0 when benchmarking without YJIT.
I did want to suggest a
StringScannerimplementation like this:Which is a performance improvement over v5.12.0, but does not come close to the byte scanning approach, and doesn't have the same performance characteristics without YJIT.