Re: [racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On May 25, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > At Thu, 25 May 2017 18:28:16 -0400, "'John Clements' via Racket Users" wrote: >>> On May 25, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: >>> Immutable hash operations are logarithmic, not constant time. >> >> I believe our documentation says th

Re: [racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Thu, 25 May 2017 18:28:16 -0400, "'John Clements' via Racket Users" wrote: > > On May 25, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > > Immutable hash operations are logarithmic, not constant time. > > I believe our documentation says they’re “effectively constant-time”. FWIW, there's a margin n

Re: [racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread Robby Findler
Well, that's because the log of the largest possible hash table is like, what, less than 100? Robby On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:28 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote: > >> On May 25, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:16 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket U

Re: [racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On May 25, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:16 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users > wrote: >> Following up on a discussion I had with another teacher here, I decided to >> briefly investigate the running time of insertion and deletion on mutable vs >> im

Re: [racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread Jon Zeppieri
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:16 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote: > Following up on a discussion I had with another teacher here, I decided to > briefly investigate the running time of insertion and deletion on mutable vs > immutable hash tables. I was a bit disappointed to find that it t

Re: [racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On May 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Ben Greenman wrote: > > Is the y-axis on the first plot labeled correctly? It's reporting fractions > of a millisecond, but the text talks about 7 vs. 40 seconds. Yes, I believe that’s correct: the 7 seconds is for constructing the table of 10 million elements,

Re: [racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread Ben Greenman
Is the y-axis on the first plot labeled correctly? It's reporting fractions of a millisecond, but the text talks about 7 vs. 40 seconds. Also the timings links aren't working for me: https://www.brinckerhoff.org/img/hash-table-timings.rkt https://www.brinckerhoff.org/img/hash-table-lookup-timings.

[racket-users] immutable hash table performance

2017-05-25 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
Following up on a discussion I had with another teacher here, I decided to briefly investigate the running time of insertion and deletion on mutable vs immutable hash tables. I was a bit disappointed to find that it turns out that insertion really doesn’t look very constant-time for insertion… o