Re: [RFC] Use a 16-tree instead of a 256-tree for storing notes
- From
Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 26, 2009, 13:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <81b0412b0908260624v30d32cc1m96e798076b51cbc9@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <200908261456.55906.johan@herland.net>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 14:56, Johan Herland<johan@herland.net> wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> 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?
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. ...