You may also consider using bit dictionary algorythms:
Suppose your key is n bits long, you divide it to k levels each m bits (k*m
= n).
At each level you have 2^m arrays that point to the next level array etc,
while at last it will be an array of values. Provided the range of potential
keys is
2009/10/27 psant...@codicesoftware.com psant...@codicesoftware.com:
Hi,
If you need to store key/value pairs, where the key will be ALWAYS a
unique long (no collisions), is there anything better than a Hashtable?
Thanks
pablo
Presumably, though, the key can span the entire range of
If the key is random, a hashtable is the fastest way. You may be able to eke
some extra speed out of the DictionaryK, V class by ripping all the code
to support generic keys and instead hardcode the key to always be a long.
That should save a bit of time, though whether it'd be noticable or not I
If you know your input set and can design a hash function that is
guaranteed to never give collisions for that input set, you could
perhaps gain something by implementing a hash table that ignores the
risk of collisions.
/Oskar
2009/10/28 Alan McGovern alan.mcgov...@gmail.com:
If the key is
Thanks,
Good to know! I'll give it a try.
Alan McGovern wrote:
If the key is random, a hashtable is the fastest way. You may be able to
eke some extra speed out of the DictionaryK, V class by ripping all
the code to support generic keys and instead hardcode the key to always
be a long. That
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:58:31PM +0100, psant...@codicesoftware.com wrote:
If you need to store key/value pairs, where the key will be ALWAYS a
unique long (no collisions), is there anything better than a Hashtable?
There are always Judy arrays, see http://judy.sourceforge.net/.
--
Felipe.
Excellent. Is there a wrapper for C#? Is it worth?
Felipe Lessa wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:58:31PM +0100, psant...@codicesoftware.com wrote:
If you need to store key/value pairs, where the key will be ALWAYS a
unique long (no collisions), is there anything better than a Hashtable?
Really what you need to do is benchmark all of the different options using
your expected workload. It's near useless us telling you X is faster or Y is
better without knowing the workload involved.
Alan.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM, pablosantosl...@terra.es
pablosantosl...@terra.es wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM, pablosantosl...@terra.es
pablosantosl...@terra.es wrote:
Excellent. Is there a wrapper for C#? Is it worth?
Not that I know of, however it shouldn't be hard to create one.
--
Felipe.
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Sure Alan!
So, basically, the options are:
- Use a sorted ArrayList and a binary search
- Reimplement hashtable focusing on long keys
- Write a wrapper to Judy
Alan McGovern wrote:
Really what you need to do is benchmark all of the different options
using your expected workload. It's near
Hey,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:30 PM, pablosantosl...@terra.es
pablosantosl...@terra.es wrote:
Sure Alan!
So, basically, the options are:
- Use a sorted ArrayList and a binary search
For this option the same story applies as for Dictionary K,V. If you write
a strongly typed sorted list
As p/invokes cost a lot, another (fourth) option would be to
reimplement judy arrays algorithm (which I admittedly know nearly
nothing about) in managed code. From reading their 10 minutes intro, I
guess some of the cache-fill optimizations it implements may be
jeopardized by the JIT workings, but
Hi,
If you need to store key/value pairs, where the key will be ALWAYS a
unique long (no collisions), is there anything better than a Hashtable?
Thanks
pablo
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
13 matches
Mail list logo
