Well, thanks to all of you. Daniel
2009/4/23 Daniel Fischer <[email protected]> > Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 14:15:16 schrieb Max Rabkin: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Daniel K. <[email protected]> > 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 [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
