On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 14:56, Johan Herland<johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? 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. ... -- 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