On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote:
> You must be a lot more confident than I if you say this without > benchmarking first. :-) IME, there are (at least) two possible problems > here, 1) transactions scale (quadratically, I think) with the number of > TVars touched, so if any transaction touch a large part of the array, > it's going to cost you, [...] That woud remain true no matter what, but the current quadratic behaviour is I believe easily enough fixed by switching to a better data structure than a list.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
