From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:56:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] Use a 16-tree instead of a 256-tree for storing notes
Message-ID: <200908261456.55906.johan@herland.net>
In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0908260505m233d9a5cmefdd81e1ef51a299@mail.gmail.com>

On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:31, Johan Herland<johan@herland.net> wrote:
> > The 256-tree structure is considerably faster than storing all
> > entries in a
>
> This part is confusing. Was 256-tree better (as in "faster") then?

256-tree is faster than the everything-in-hash_map draft.
16-tree is slightly faster than 256-tree

256-tree uses more memory (in the worst case) that the 
everything-in-hash-map draft.
16-tree uses less memory than both.


Makes sense?


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net