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

Alex Riesen wrote:

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 14:56, Johan Herland[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:

quoted

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?

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                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
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.