Use strings.FieldsSeq in SQLOperationName #55
Merged
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
Member
|
hi @skarm, thanks for the contribution! 🚀 |
Co-authored-by: Skarm <skarm@users.noreply.github.com>
obitech
approved these changes
Jun 3, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Replaced manual string trimming and splitting with strings.FieldsSeq to efficiently extract the first SQL keyword.
Benchmark results show a ~30% improvement in execution time (from ~26.6ns to ~18.8ns) with zero allocations in both cases. While the performance gain is minor in absolute terms, the new implementation using strings.FieldsFunc is more modern and allocation-free by design.