Issue #21654 has been updated by knu (Akinori MUSHA). I agree. - The implementation of Set.new can be naïve, that is, it shouldn't perform size checks or similar validations. - Enumerable#to_set can simply delegate everything to Set.new as it is now. - Adding Range#to_set and Enumerator#to_set overrides that perform size checks would help users avoid most common pitfalls. ---------------------------------------- Bug #21654: Set#new calls extra methods compared to previous versions https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21654#change-115151 * Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) * Status: Open * 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 ---------------------------------------- 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: ```ruby 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: ```ruby assert_raise(ArgumentError) { Set.new(1.upto(Float::INFINITY)) } ``` I'm not sure how we can handle such a case without testing `size`. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/