Ondrej Bilka wrote:
> > This means, the data structure would be a balanced tree of small arrays.
> did you mean T-tree?
> http://www.vldb.org/conf/1986/P294.PDF
Yes! This is exactly what I meant. The T-Tree came out better than the AVL
tree. The timing measurements were done on an old VAX. With n
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 01:18:18AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
> Anyone can add additional variants to the gnulib gl_list or gl_oset types.
> I have no objection, but I won't spend time on doing endless variants of the
> same thing. One could also implement Treap trees or some ot
Eric Blake wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00419.html
>
> with some interesting ideas for speeding up iteration of an RB tree, either
> at
> the expense of two additional pointers (fastest speed, good cache usage, but
> large memory penalty), or with the addition of two bi
Eric Blake writes:
> Bruno, I noticed this thread on the gcc lists:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00419.html
>
> with some interesting ideas for speeding up iteration of an RB tree, either
> at
> the expense of two additional pointers (fastest speed, good cache usage, but
>
Bruno, I noticed this thread on the gcc lists:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00419.html
with some interesting ideas for speeding up iteration of an RB tree, either at
the expense of two additional pointers (fastest speed, good cache usage, but
large memory penalty), or with the a
