The implementation isn't that unreasonable when the default buffer size is used. One could also keep a separate lists of entries in a hashtable which is keyed on the name, and then the filtering would happen on type only, or vice versa.
Bug 1686930 Comment 6 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
The implementation isn't that unreasonable when the default buffer size is used. One could also keep a separate lists of entries in a hashtable which is keyed on the name, and then the filtering would happen on type only, or vice versa. But there would still be O(n) behavior. Caching the most recent result and possibly explicitly modifying that if there are new entries machine to it might work in some cases, but not in general.
The implementation isn't that unreasonable when the default buffer size is used. One could also keep a separate lists of entries in a hashtable which is keyed on the name, and then the filtering would happen on type only, or vice versa. But there would still be O(n) behavior. Caching the most recent result and possibly explicitly modifying that if there are new entries maching to that might work in some cases, but not in general.
The implementation isn't that unreasonable when the default buffer size is used. One could also keep a separate lists of entries in a hashtable which is keyed on the name, and then the filtering would happen on type only, or vice versa. But there would still be O(n) behavior. Caching the most recent result and possibly explicitly modifying that if there are new entries matching the filters it use might work in some cases, but not in general.