Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes:
> After optimising the hashtable implementation I conclude the following,
> 1. + 0.25s 10M lookups in small hashtable (0.36s for guiles current)
> 2. + 6X faster for a large table scanning numbers
What do you mean by "large taable scanning numbers"? (I don’t
Hi all,
After optimising the hashtable implementation I conclude the following,
1. + 0.25s 10M lookups in small hashtable (0.36s for guiles current)
2. + 6X faster for a large table scanning numbers
3. + The general hash interface is faster also because it does not call SCM
from C
4. + fast
