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

From: Johan Herland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:56:55 +0200

On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:31, Johan Herland<[email-masked]> 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, <[email-masked]>
www.herland.net