[1/n] use u32 for item indexes#242
Merged
sunshowers merged 2 commits intomainfrom May 4, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Created using spr 1.3.6-beta.1
Created using spr 1.3.6-beta.1
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Preparation for upcoming work to switch to a slab implementation. u32 is quite nice for cache density in practice, and most benchmarks get better. A few become worse due to
FxHasherbeing slightly better with 64-bit integers, though regressions completely vanish with the next commit in the series since we removeFxHasher.This does put a 2^32 - 1 (we reserve one value as the sentinel) limit on the number of items in the set, but that's a completely reasonable limit to have. We'll want to document this in the changelog, though.
Also use a newtype internally to ensure we aren't getting anything wrong.