Author malte
Recipients andrew.coles, erez, florian, jendrik, malte, silvia
Date 2016-12-08.17:14:10
Regarding Andrew's suggestion, this is indeed another optimization we discussed
and should test at some point. It's already part of the longer-term plan (see
the SearchNodeInfo row and "ideal" column in msg5843).

I generally like doing this one optimization at a time because I think that
makes it easier to evaluate the impact of the various changes on memory,
coverage and runtime, but we should certainly not forget about this optimization

Let me point out that for certain search algorithms (greedy BFS without
reopening), we can also get rid of the g values altogether.
Date User Action Args
2016-12-08 17:14:10maltesetmessageid: <>
2016-12-08 17:14:10maltesetrecipients: + malte, erez, andrew.coles, silvia, jendrik, florian
2016-12-08 17:14:10maltelinkissue213 messages
2016-12-08 17:14:10maltecreate