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/ . ↩
- name: ffn_ablation，详情可参考PDF资料
SelectWhat's included。PDF资料对此有专业解读
坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位，植根博大精深的中华文明，顺应信息技术发展潮流，发展具有强大思想引领力、精神凝聚力、价值感召力、国际影响力的新时代中国特色社会主义文化，扎实推进文化强国建设。