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

From: Andreas Ericsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:27:22 +0200

Alex Riesen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 14:56, Johan Herland<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> 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. ...

If it's to be squashed in, why mention the 256-tree at all (except
for possibly as something to compare with at the end)?
If it goes on top, why mention the hash_map at all?

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   [email-masked]
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.