Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes:
A little background on hash tables first:
Consider you want to have the object X, which you'd expect at position
i, but because that place was already taken by B, it is not found at
position i, you start looking right of position i to find X
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes:
Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes:
However please do check if this patch brings the promised performance
on your own, as you're likely using different hardware and another
software setup. Feel free to share your performance differences.
On 08/16/2013 11:26 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes:
Stefan Beller stefanbel...@googlemail.com writes:
However please do check if this patch brings the promised performance
on your own, as you're likely using different hardware and another
software setup. Feel
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:26:28AM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
I trust the laptop numbers less because it has far more thermal (and
thus throttling) issues, but the runs do show a significant difference,
though less than you claimed.
Well, as I feared... another run on the same laptop:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 05:57:22AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
In that case, it seems like we would want to move B to the second
position. This lets the 2-hot case just keep swapping the hot items back
and forth as quickly as possible. To the detriment of C, D, etc, which
never get promoted. But
A little background on hash tables first:
Consider you want to have the object X, which you'd expect at position
i, but because that place was already taken by B, it is not found at
position i, you start looking right of position i to find X until you
find it.
index | i-1 | i | i+1 |
6 matches
Mail list logo
