There are a couple ways mitigate this drawback, both of which are outside the scope of this article. One is “garbage collection”: pruning tombstones from CRDTs, which prevents you from merging states with any changes made before the tombstones were removed. Another is creating an efficient format to encode the data. You can also combine these methods. Research suggests that this can result in as little as 50% overhead compared to the “plain” data CRDTs: The Hard Parts A talk on the latest research on CRDTs, originally given at the Hydra distributed computing conference on 6 July 2020.References: https://martin.kleppmann.co... youtu.be/x7drE24geUw?t=3587 . If you’d like to skip ahead and see some of this optimization in action, check out the final part in this series: Making CRDTs 98% More Efficient Making CRDTs 98% More Efficient | jakelazaroff.com State-based CRDTs grow monotonically, but that doesn't mean they can't be efficient. We'll learn how to compress the pixel editor state by 98%. jakelazaroff.com/words/making-crdts-98-percent-more-efficient/ . ↩
For implementers, this promise-heavy design constrains optimization opportunities. The spec mandates specific promise resolution ordering, making it difficult to batch operations or skip unnecessary async boundaries without risking subtle compliance failures. There are many hidden internal optimizations that implementers do make but these can be complicated and difficult to get right.
，推荐阅读搜狗输入法2026获取更多信息
provides a join! macro with some select!-like features. Here's one way it，这一点在快连下载安装中也有详细论述
Евгений Силаев (Ночной линейный редактор)。WPS下载最新地址对此有专业解读