Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Couldn't we just iterate over the array (instead of making a hashmap)? > > If speed is important, I think we could just sort the array and do a > > binary search. > > The primary reason I used a hashmap is to be consistent with struct > remote (which also uses a hashmap). One possible argument in your favor > is that remotes are often looked up by name often (and justify the > hashmap), whereas branches are not looked up by name as often (and don't > justify a hashmap). > > I say _justify_, but I don't see significant drawbacks to using a > hashmap here. I suspect that there is an advantage to binary search that > you haven't made explicit yet? Could you share your thought process to > help inform the decision? The main drawback is that branches are now stored in 2 ways - as the "branches" array in struct remote_state and as this new "branches_hash". I think we should avoid storing the same data twice unless we really need to, and I don't think there is a need here. As for hashmap vs array (say, if we were thinking of removing the array and putting in a hashmap instead), I would still prefer the array (sorted if needed) just for the simplicity, but I wouldn't feel as strongly about this since there is no duplication here.
