From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:27:22 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC] Use a 16-tree instead of a 256-tree for storing notes Message-ID: <4A95383A.4080104@op5.se> In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0908260624v30d32cc1m96e798076b51cbc9@mail.gmail.com> Alex Riesen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 14:56, Johan Herland wrote: >> On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Alex Riesen wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:31, Johan Herland 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? > > Oh, it does, it is just confusingly presented. How about: > > The 16-tree is both faster and has lower footprint then 256-tree > code, which in its turn is noticably faster and smaller then existing > hash_map implementation. ... If it's to be squashed in, why mention the 256-tree at all (except for possibly as something to compare with at the end)? If it goes on top, why mention the hash_map at all? -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war on peace.