Bug #21654: Set#new calls extra methods compared to previous versions

• Status: Open
• Assignee: -
• Target version: -
• ruby -v: ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-10-24T15:50:47Z master a9f24aaccb) +PRISM [arm64-darwin25]
• Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN

[tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)]

I'm trying to test Ruby 3.5.0 with our Rails application and we've found that Set.new is now causing extra database queries to happen.

The changes in d4020dd5faf call "size" on enumerable objects that are passed to the new method, and this causes extra "COUNT" queries to happen with ActiveRecord associations.

For example:

Set.new(some_activerecord_association)

Previously, the above code would only do one query by iterating over the association. Now it issues two queries, a count query, and then the normal query for results.

Since d4020dd5faf is dealing with endless ranges, I would like to narrow the scope from all Enumerable objects to just Ranges. Unfortunately, I noticed we have a test like this:

    assert_raise(ArgumentError) {
      Set.new(1.upto(Float::INFINITY))
    }

I'm not sure how we can handle such a case without testing size.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

How about handling only Range and Enumerator (not Enumerable) for now? Avoiding an extra DB query on ActiveRecord relations seems like a more important use case than preventing user-defined Enumerable with an infinite length from hanging, unless we already know of an existing use case for it. I think infinite-sized Enumerable classes are often implemented as an Enumerator, so it might still work for such cases too.

[Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme)]

It seems to me that's an argument in favor of #17924 Range#infinite?

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Related to Bug #21513: Converting endless range to set hangs added

[tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)]

k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) wrote in #note-1:

How about handling only Range and Enumerator (not Enumerable) for now? Avoiding an extra DB query on ActiveRecord relations seems like a more important use case than preventing user-defined Enumerable with an infinite length from hanging, unless we already know of an existing use case for it. I think infinite-sized Enumerable classes are often implemented as an Enumerator, so it might still work for such cases too.

I think that makes sense. I've got a patch mostly prepared, so I'll submit it.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

　How about handling only Range and Enumerator (not Enumerable) for now?

I think it would be better to handle only Range for now, and not Enumerator either. See https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21513#note-10

[tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)]

mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-5:

　How about handling only Range and Enumerator (not Enumerable) for now?

I think it would be better to handle only Range for now, and not Enumerator either. See https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21513#note-10

I sent a pull request that only handles Range for now: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/14990

This fixes the issues we're seeing in tests.

[Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme)]

@mame (Yusuke Endoh), this PR causes Set.new(1..1/0.0) to hang rather than raise an error. The unit test for this was removed: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/14990/files#diff-841852fda8de5c29b86810572be72d6e29cda4a2f3d179c63b77fb6fb06d09dfL91-L93

What that really what you meant by "checking if Range#end is nil is good enough" ?

[ufuk (Ufuk Kayserilioglu)]

IMO, ranges should behave the same when end == Float::INFINITY and when end == nil. They are both practically endless ranges, but nothing normalizes them so that they always behave the same. Maybe (1..1/0.0) should be internally treated the same as (1..) and have end == nil?

Regardless, I think that is a problem for the Range class to solve, so that other classes don't have to check for nil and infinity and whatever else separately.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-7:

What that really what you meant by "checking if Range#end is nil is good enough" ?

Yes. The original issue (#21513) was about the consistency between (1..).to_a and (1..).to_set. Since (1..1/0.0).to_a hangs, I think it's fine if (1..1/0.0).to_set also hangs.

Admittedly, I'm biased: I generally feel that proactively raising exceptions for endless range operations is unnecessary. If an operation hangs, let it hang.

Should we ask @matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) to decide?

[tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)]

mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-9:

Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-7:

What that really what you meant by "checking if Range#end is nil is good enough" ?

Yes. The original issue (#21513) was about the consistency between (1..).to_a and (1..).to_set. Since (1..1/0.0).to_a hangs, I think it's fine if (1..1/0.0).to_set also hangs.

Admittedly, I'm biased: I generally feel that proactively raising exceptions for endless range operations is unnecessary. If an operation hangs, let it hang.

I personally agree with this. If I write an infinite loop, I expect it to loop infinitely, even if I wrote the infinite loop by mistake. Calling to_a or to_set on an infinite range is iterating infinitely.

Should we ask @matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) to decide?

If it's necessary. Is it necessary? 😅

[jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)]

tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote in #note-10:

mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-9:

Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-7:

What that really what you meant by "checking if Range#end is nil is good enough" ?

Yes. The original issue (#21513) was about the consistency between (1..).to_a and (1..).to_set. Since (1..1/0.0).to_a hangs, I think it's fine if (1..1/0.0).to_set also hangs.

Admittedly, I'm biased: I generally feel that proactively raising exceptions for endless range operations is unnecessary. If an operation hangs, let it hang.

I personally agree with this. If I write an infinite loop, I expect it to loop infinitely, even if I wrote the infinite loop by mistake. Calling to_a or to_set on an infinite range is iterating infinitely.

I agree with @mame (Yusuke Endoh) and @tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson). Removing special handling of infinite ranges avoids the original issue (calling size), as well as avoiding the nil vs Infinity range end issue. I think we should just revert d4020dd5faf28486123853e7f00c36139fc07793.