If your hash table implementation is interface-compatible with the
built-in one and does better than it, the logical path to go is to
replace the built-in table with yours. Would you be interested in that?
We'd need a battery of tests for such, and I see you already got one
from PyDict. Great!
Andrei
On 10/22/10 8:59 CDT, David Simcha wrote:
I've come to the realization that one of the most annoying library level
problems in D2 is lack of a good hash table implementation for large
tables. The builtin AAs aren't bad for small to medium sized tables, but
are absolutely terrible for large tables due to the way they manage
memory. Is anyone already working on a sealed container implementation
of hash tables? If not, would others be interested in my RandAA
(http://dsource.org/projects/aa) after some cleanup, etc.? I believe
that this design is extremely well suited to the sealed container
paradigm, and it interacts much better with the GC than the builtin
impl. when dealing with large arrays.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
