Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 14:15:16 schrieb Max Rabkin: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Daniel K. <anmeldema...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dijkstra's algorithm ... relies heavily on mutating arrays > > Well, the imperative implementation does. > > > Not mutating the underlying arrays would probably result in poor > > performance. > > Indeed. Non-mutable arrays are not very performant for mutations. > Tree-like data structures Are Your Friend. > > I've never compared the performance of an ST-based implementation with > a set/map based algorithm, but I've often found the latter usably > performant.
I have occasionally, and I can confirm that often set/map based algorithms give quite usable performance. But usually ST-based implementations are significantly faster. If the algorithm demands a lot of updates and performance is important, I recommend sacrificing the ease and elegance of coding with sets/maps for ST's uglier but faster code (but verify that set/map performance is unsatisfactory first). > > --Max _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
