Ok I see. I would be curious to see if SystemDictionary does not degrade once we load Moose, Mondrian, Glamour....
>> 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
