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

On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:31, Johan Herland[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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, [off-list ref]
www.herland.net