Reduce SpatialQueryPipeline overhead#696
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced May 6, 2025
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Objective
The
SpatialQueryPipelinecurrently has some egregious overhead for scenes with a large number of entities. It allocates anEntityHashMapwith all colliders (Arced) and some other data, from scratch, every frame. Even worse, it allocates QBVH nodes for all entities up to the largest colliderEntityindex. For a scene with 999,999 non-physics entities and one collider, it seems to allocate a million QBVH nodes every frame. This produces profiles like this:Yikes!
Solution
Just store QBVH proxies in a
Vec, and use those vec indices rather thanEntityindices for QBVH building. This also lets us replace a bunch of hashmap lookups with vector indexing, get rid of someEntityconversions, and avoid table scans forAdded<Collider>.This is still kind of a duct-tape fix. We should ideally have separate BVHs for dynamic or kinematic and static or sleeping bodies, along with incremental updates. It would also be good if we didn't have to store all the duplicate collider data and just queried the ECS directly, assuming the query overhead is negligible. This will be worked on in the future.
Still, this seems to be much better!