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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

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, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
www.herland.net
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]