Brian Pane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's a modification of Joe Schaefer's table patch that uses > a mergesort to do apr_table_compress and apr_table_overlap. > > This will ensure a worst-case run time of n*log(n) instead > of n^2. However, I'm not sure whether the extra complexity > of the mergesort will hurt the performance on small data > sets. Joe, if you have time to test this patch, can you > let me know how it performs compared to your patch?
Certainly, Brian! I'll post my oprofile data as soon as I get a chance, perhaps in a day or so. OTOH for apreq-2, the most important part of my original patch was the internal use of the copy/merge callbacks. Is there some technical reason you omitted them from this patch, or are you leaving out the callback API until there's consensus on the apr_table_overlap implementation? -- Joe Schaefer
