lib: optimize priority queue

[gurgunday]

Huge credit to @lemire, I only ported the parts that we can to improve performance without introducing breaking changes

First run:

After:

util/priority-queue.js

util/priority-queue.js n=100000: 6,372,311.7447058195

Before:

util/priority-queue.js

util/priority-queue.js n=100000: 5,610,982.713123359

Second run:

After:

util/priority-queue.js

util/priority-queue.js n=100000: 6,524,784.786498602

Before:

util/priority-queue.js

util/priority-queue.js n=100000: 4,854,606.242159507

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.26%. Comparing base (fd45383) to head (db55a71).
Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #57100   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.26%   90.26%           
=======================================
  Files         630      630           
  Lines      184634   184645   +11     
  Branches    36137    36126   -11     
=======================================
+ Hits       166654   166675   +21     
+ Misses      11022    11017    -5     
+ Partials     6958     6953    -5     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/priority_queue.js	99.19% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️

... and 44 files with indirect coverage changes

[gurgunday]

@aduh95 would you like to take a look as well?

[aduh95]

Benchmark CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/1660/

                                confidence improvement accuracy (*)   (**)  (***)
util/priority-queue.js n=100000        ***      7.48 %       ±1.29% ±1.72% ±2.23%

Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive
result increases. In this case, there are 1 comparisons, you can thus
expect the following amount of false-positive results:
  0.05 false positives, when considering a   5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***),
  0.01 false positives, when considering a   1% risk acceptance (**, ***),
  0.00 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***)

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/65403/

[gurgunday]

@aduh95 can we try again? I rebased maybe there was a flaky test

[aduh95]

@gurgunday yes it was likely a flaky test. However, please don't rebase in this case, we can resume the failing jobs (when you rebase, we have re-run the whole suite). When getting a flaky test, you can search for issues reporting them (if we ignore them, they're only going to pile up until the CI is completely unusable); I've (re)opened the following issues to track those flakes:

• pummel/test-tls-session-timeout failing #26839
• test-blob-slice-with-large-size is flaky #57235

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/65480/

[gurgunday]

@aduh95 sorry for that, I didn't know

Thanks for the response, I'll try to take a look at these flaky tests as well!

[nodejs-github-bot]

Landed in 52ecb96