> On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 11:32:19AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > With a local hash table, I don't think it's necessary to introduce new > > code for managing > > a DSA based list of tranche names as is done in v3. We can go back to > > storing the shared > > trance names in dshash. > > > > What do you think? > > My first thought is that a per-backend hash table seems too > expensive/complicated for this. Couldn't it just be an array like we have > now?
We can, but I was considering simplicity of implementation, and using a local hash table is slightly simpler. That said, since we're dealing with an append-only data structure, a hash table is probably more than we need. All we need is index-based lookup, so I’ll go with the local array to mirror the shared ( dsa ) array. -- Sami
