From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:24:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] Use a 16-tree instead of a 256-tree for storing notes
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:
> 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. ...