On 05/25/2011 05:41 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, May 26, 2011 at 00:36:48 +0300: >> I've not read the code, but would an array of 'svn_revnum_t[2]' be >> a better representation? >> >> Specifically: an append-only array of [from_rev, to_rev] pairs, sorted >> by from_rev. That's less overhead (and we could take advantage of the >> sorting to store less data), at the cost of O(log(n)) lookup. >> > > And the numbers... well, for a plain C array it would be 70% less than > in Greg's analysis of the hash case, since the additional 20 bytes per > mapping entry are gone. (and that's before I suggest to not store > [N+1, M+1] if [N,M] is already stored)
Great ideas. I've filed issue #3903 to track this enhancement. Not, IMO, a 1.7 blocker (any more than it was a 1.0 blocker). -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
