From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: [RFC] Use a 16-tree instead of a 256-tree for storing notes Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:27:22 +0200 Message-ID: <4A95383A.4080104@op5.se> References: <1248834326-31488-1-git-send-email-johan@herland.net> <200908261231.01616.johan@herland.net> <81b0412b0908260505m233d9a5cmefdd81e1ef51a299@mail.gmail.com> <200908261456.55906.johan@herland.net> <81b0412b0908260624v30d32cc1m96e798076b51cbc9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johan Herland , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, trast@student.ethz.ch, tavestbo@trolltech.com, git@drmicha.warpmail.net, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, spearce@spearce.org To: Alex Riesen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 26 15:27:40 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MgIXK-0006Iv-4z for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:27:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757168AbZHZN13 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:27:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757053AbZHZN13 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:27:29 -0400 Received: from na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.69]:55780 "HELO na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756368AbZHZN12 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:27:28 -0400 Received: from source ([209.85.219.215]) by na3sys009aob102.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSpU4QVESslwi53EpI6Ty6FMyeUb9RxGv@postini.com; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:27:31 PDT Received: by mail-ew0-f215.google.com with SMTP id 11so148381ewy.11 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.85.195 with SMTP id u45mr1529054wee.14.1251293249398; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clix.int.op5.se ([212.112.174.166]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm1747977eyd.0.2009.08.26.06.27.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:27:25 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0908260624v30d32cc1m96e798076b51cbc9@mail.gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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.