Re: A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- From: cri@xxxxxxxx (Richard Harter)
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:06:12 GMT
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:54:30 -0700, Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
cri@xxxxxxxx (Richard Harter) writes:
[new data structure for table]
I didn't go into details at the time and no one followed up on
the thought. It turns out that there is an interesting data
structure involved, one that I am not familiar with. Let me
generalize a wee bit.
It's interesting. I'd like to see empirical analysis of this
technique (in terms of time and space cost) for an
implementation, with comparison against a hash table
implementation.
I put together an implementation and have done a few tests but I'm a
ways from anything definitive. Preliminary results suggest that, yes,
it's faster than hash tables for searches. In the data sets I tested it
took longer to hash a string than it did to search for it. There are
quite a few caveats. The code is a first implementation and can
probably be tweaked. The testing data sets are mostly source code and
concatenated collections of HTML files so there isn't a large spread of
record sizes. Also I haven't instrumented the insert code; it will be
slower than a search but shouldn't be slower by much.
More later.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- From: Ben Pfaff
- Re: A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- References:
- A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- From: Richard Harter
- Re: A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- From: Ben Pfaff
- A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- Prev by Date: Re: bison and valgrind
- Next by Date: Re: computing the moment of inertia
- Previous by thread: Re: A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- Next by thread: Re: A (psossibly) fast, novel search table technique
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|