Browse thread
Re: Hashtbl or ref Map?
- Michael Hicks
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Michael Hicks <mwh@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: Hashtbl or ref Map? |
> I'd like to have a simple map (association table, not hashed) > and share it between OCAML threads. Which module (from efficiency > point-of-view) it would better to use for that purpose: Hashtbl > or ref Map? I was wondering the same thing and did some experiements. On my pentium 166 with lots of memory, I ran a test which inserted about 150 different strings into the table and then looked up each string. The time for the hashtable operations includes the time to enter and exit a critical section. I measured the total time to insert all of the strings, and the total time to find all of the strings. The initial size of the hashtable didn't affect the overall measurements by a significant amount. Using the bytecode compiler, I found that inserts for the hashtable are about 4 times faster, and finds are almost twice as fast. With native code, the hashtable is about 2.5 times faster for inserts and about 1.3 times faster for finds. Of course, the hashtable does not allow different threads to look at versions of the table created at different times, whereas a map would. Mike -- Michael Hicks Ph.D. Candidate, the University of Pennsylvania http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mwh mailto://mwh@dsl.cis.upenn.edu "I worked with an individual who plugged his power strip back into itself and for the life of him could not understand why his computer would not turn on."