On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:12:54 -0600, "Nathan Ingersoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
> On 3/2/07, Tilman Sauerbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > IIRC there's one global "data" section, and every collection/group > > does have its own "data" section, too. So we can't get away with a > > single hash table. Not that it matters much :) > > Right, the proposed change was only for the global data section and > not the group data sections. My thinking was that with per-group data > collections, you are much less likely to have many items in the list > since they are a much smaller scope for each. Maybe the hash could be created only if there is a certain number of items in the data section. For example, if there are more than 20 items, you build the hash, otherwise you keep the linked-list. And that could be applied for both global and group data-sections. Simon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and > earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel > mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
