On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:31, Johan Herland<johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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? > hash_map. Also, the memory consumption of the 256-tree structure is lower > than the hash_map, provided that you're only loading a few notes from a > "properly fanned-out" notes tree (i.e. 100000 notes in a 2/2/36 structure). > However, in the worst case (loading all 100000 notes), the memory usage of > the 256-tree structure (62.64 MB) is significantly worse than the hash_map > approach (10.25 MB). > > This patch modifies the 256-tree structure into a 16-tree structure. This > significantly improves the memory situation. The result uses less memory > than both the 256-tree structure, and the hash_map approach, with a worst > case usage of 8.54 MB. Additionally, it seems to slightly improve the > runtime performance as well (probably because of the improved memory usage). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html