Re: [RFC] Use a 16-tree instead of a 256-tree for storing notes

[Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>]

On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Alex Riesen wrote:
> > 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. ...
>
> 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?

Ah. Sorry for the confusion. These patches are not meant to standalone 
patches in the jh/notes series. They just compare various solutions to 
the problem of parsing a notes tree structure with fanout in an 
efficient manner.

The next iteration of the jh/notes series will include the preferred 
solution (16-tree unless something better shows up), _without_ talking 
about the differences between alternative solutions. As such the 
hash_map and 256-tree will not be mentioned at all.


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net