From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johan Herland Subject: Re: [RFC] Use a 16-tree instead of a 256-tree for storing notes Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:56:55 +0200 Message-ID: <200908261456.55906.johan@herland.net> References: <1248834326-31488-1-git-send-email-johan@herland.net> <200908261231.01616.johan@herland.net> <81b0412b0908260505m233d9a5cmefdd81e1ef51a299@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 15:04:10 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 1MgIAY-00073s-QV for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:04:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932945AbZHZND5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:03:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932936AbZHZND4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:03:56 -0400 Received: from sam.opera.com ([213.236.208.81]:33833 "EHLO smtp.opera.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932927AbZHZND4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:03:56 -0400 Received: from pc107.coreteam.oslo.opera.com (pat-tdc.opera.com [213.236.208.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.opera.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id n7QCuumX010245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:57:01 GMT User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0908260505m233d9a5cmefdd81e1ef51a299@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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? ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net