Message5873

Author malte
Recipients andrew.coles, erez, florian, jendrik, malte, silvia
Date 2016-12-14.03:55:26
Content
Those numbers certainly look better. :-) There still seems to be a bit of a
slowdown in most tasks, but I think that would be an acceptable penalty given
the memory improvements.

I still think we should split this into separate issues, though. For example, if
we change the hash function and hash table at the same time (which I think the
experiment does?), the changes become harder to evaluate.

> In light of these results, I suggest we polish and merge this hash table
> implementation, before we try to come up with fancier versions :-) What do
> you think?

Sounds fine to me. (Regarding alternative hash table implementations, I was
really hoping that we could use something simpler rather than something more
complex. But either way, this can wait.)
History
Date User Action Args
2016-12-14 03:55:26maltesetmessageid: <1481684126.07.0.811837357879.issue213@unibas.ch>
2016-12-14 03:55:26maltesetrecipients: + malte, erez, andrew.coles, silvia, jendrik, florian
2016-12-14 03:55:26maltelinkissue213 messages
2016-12-14 03:55:26maltecreate