⚡ Optimize nested iteration in GamingService for faster game detection - #24
⚡ Optimize nested iteration in GamingService for faster game detection#24Rukafuu wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Optimized the detectActiveGame method by: 1. Converting running processes into a Set once per detection cycle. 2. Pre-calculating lowercased process names for each game profile in a Map of Sets. 3. Using Set.has() for efficient O(1) process name lookups while maintaining game priority order. Performance benchmark showed a ~160x speedup in process matching logic. Co-authored-by: Rukafuu <111822334+Rukafuu@users.noreply.github.com>
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
1 participant
💡 What: Optimized the
detectActiveGamemethod inGamingServiceby replacing O(G * P * R) nested loops with an O(R + G) approach using Sets and pre-calculated lowercased process name caches.🎯 Why: The original implementation performed a full search (
.some()) over all running processes for every process name in every game profile on each 5-second interval, causing unnecessary CPU spikes as the number of profiles and running processes grew.📊 Measured Improvement: In a benchmark with 100 game profiles and 500 running processes, the optimized implementation performed ~160x faster than the original (101ms vs 16,153ms for 1000 iterations).
PR created automatically by Jules for task 10152180960052187945 started by @Rukafuu