fix: Avoid potential slow Set#removeAll call in HierarchicalCommunica…

…tor (#13746) (#13818) * fix: Avoid potential slow Set#removeAll call in HierarchicalCommunicationController#passivateInactiveKeys The performance of calling Set#removeAll(List) is dependent on the relative sizes of the Set and List parameter. Replace Set#removeAll with List#forEach(Set::remove) to avoid this. Fixes #13745 Co-authored-by: Mikhail Shabarov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Soroosh Taefi <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mikhail Shabarov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Soroosh Taefi <[email protected]>
vaadin · May 20, 2022 · 40d3b41 · 40d3b41
1 parent 1902ae7
commit 40d3b41
Showing 1 changed file with 8 additions and 1 deletion.
diff --git a/...ain/java/com/vaadin/flow/data/provider/hierarchy/HierarchicalCommunicationController.java b/...ain/java/com/vaadin/flow/data/provider/hierarchy/HierarchicalCommunicationController.java
@@ -288,7 +288,14 @@ private void passivateInactiveKeys(Set<String> oldActive,
             }
 
             // Finally clear any passivated items that have now been confirmed
-            oldActive.removeAll(newActiveKeyOrder);
+            /*
+             * Due to the implementation of AbstractSet#removeAll, if the size
+             * of newActiveKeyOrder is bigger than oldActive's size, then
+             * calling oldActive.removeAll(newActiveKeyOrder) would end up
+             * calling contains method for all of newActiveKeyOrder items which
+             * is a slow operation on lists. The following avoids that:
+             */
+            newActiveKeyOrder.forEach(oldActive::remove);
             if (!oldActive.isEmpty()) {
                 passivatedByUpdate.put(Integer.valueOf(updateId), oldActive);
             }