> >Can you verify that the implementation is correct? I tend to remember that I > >introduced the > >lazy incerementation to inliner both for perofrmance and correctness > >reasons. I used to get > >odd orders when keys was increased. > > > >Honza > > Hello. > > What kind of correctness do you mean? Old implementation didn't > support increment operation and the fact was hushed up.
I see, you patch actually implement the variant of busy (and thus suboptimal) method of increasing key by combination of removal&insertion. I guess O(log n) is good enough for everything except for inliner that does the lazy increases instead. Doing lazy increases probably means to store pair of keys per node that is wasteful, so the patch is OK as it is. Honza > > Martin
