Doug, On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Doug Lea<d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> On further evaluating it (among other possible HashMap replacements), > I'm not convinced that they are enough better to commit. > Size: ... 9216 36864 147456 589824 > HashMap ... 45 97 208 273 > V2 ... 40 78 188 257 Gain +12% +24% +11% +6% More than 10% average improvement on big maps, not worse on tiny maps, less memory usage - not a bad result imho > Similarly for the mixed-side-array approach of Alex's Compact/Fast HashMap. My version is a chained map, not an open map, So concerns about locality and hit rates does not apply. And with defragmentation there is not so many cache misses on collisions. Alex
