In the far past Visual Age would become the implementation logic for Sets depending on how big the set was, so for example with 10 elements it would be linear list. Of course it's been 14 years, perhaps I'm remembering it wrong.
On 2009-10-22, at 6:46 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >> So this means that by default we have bad performance. no? > > No. > > In a fresh Pharo Web image less than 6% of the keys in Dictionaries > and less than 10% of the values in Sets have a weak-hashes. Moreover > the largest set with weak-hash values has 516 elements (on average > only 1.8 elements), the largest dictionary with weak-hash keys has > 1002 elements (on average only 4.3 elements). Using HashTable in such > a situation would introduce a major speed penalty and waste a lot of > memory. > > It would be cool if the Set and the Dictionary would choose their > implementation strategy automatically depending on the use-case. In a > standard Pharo image however that would just be the current > implementation. There are simply no instances in the image where it > would be worthwhile (large amount of data with bad hash) to use a > HashMap. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- = = = ======================================================================== John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
