On 24 August 2011 17:06, sujata patra <[email protected]> wrote: >> Though personally, if you're using a cache-based approach, >> then I can't see the point of working with the iterators at all. >> It's one of the less efficient implementation approaches.
> I see your point . I do not think any performance/efficiency issue on small > table . Though I understand it is traversing the linked list. It's not so much that it's traversing a linked list. More that it is traversing the whole list for *every* incoming request. (i.e. each individual GETNEXT, not the walk as a whole) So if you've got 10 rows in your table, walking one column will involve 10 calls to the 'get_first' routine and 100 calls to 'get_next'. Which will then be repeated for each column object. It doesn't take a very big table for this to become a non-trivial overhead! Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
