OK I have ready the changes described in this thread, but I didn't go ahead with removing "quick" methods. It proved to be a very large change, and, there were some situations where it looks like we need to think a little harder about what to do with the resulting code; it's not really just a matter of removing one method, which would end up incurring a lot of overhead in normal operations. That is to say -- the problem is not merely solved with a bulk update method either.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Ted Dunning<ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > IN fact, setQuick could be viewed as a performance degrading option since it > leads people to imagine that they have "optimized" their code. set() is > generally inlined and the bounds checks are often lifted out of the loop so > there would be no difference. As Sean suggest, however, there is a huge > benefit to be gained by block updates. > > Thus, eliminating setQuick might encourage people to avoid complacency and > seek out a bulk update. >
