Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
in memory. Dieter estimates 20% to 35% slowdown for the C algorithms
(whatever that means), Tim seems to think it won't have such a big
effect. I guess we'll only know after some benchmarks.
Can we please not make any definite decisions until this issue has
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
I have a need for 64-bit BTrees (at least for IOBTree and OIBTree),
and I'm not the first. I've created a feature
On 4/17/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that IIBTrees is so widely used is exatly the reason
I want to use 64-bits for the existing types rather than having to
introduce a new type.
Oops, I was checking in the separated version of 64-bit BTrees while
this was landing in my
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
I have a need for 64-bit BTrees (at least for IOBTree and OIBTree),
and I'm not the first. I've created a feature development branch for
this, and checked in my initial implementation.
I've modified the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
I have a need for 64-bit BTrees (at least for IOBTree and OIBTree),
and I'm not the first. I've created a feature development branch for
[Tres Seaver]
...
I would guess that if you could do a census of all the OIDs in all the
Datas.fs in the world, a significant majority of them would be instances
of classes declared in IOBTree / IIBTree (certainly the bulk of
*transaction* records are going to be tied up with them).
Provided
