[
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: | Markus Mottl <markus@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] A G'Caml question" + additional info |
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Krishnaswami, Neel wrote: > He has some timing data comparing splay trees, balanced binary > trees, Patricia tries, and red-black trees in his paper "Fast > Mergeable Integer Maps." To summarize, red-black trees were the > fastest on lookup, and second-fastest on insertion. But they don't > perform very well on the merge operation. (These are all fairly > tuned implementations, though.) As usual, never trust statistics that you haven't faked yourself... Such things can be pretty language and compiler dependent. At least what concerns Patricia trees, I can assert that they really perform very well in OCaml. This is obviously not true for red-black trees: on my simple tests with random numbers, insertion took longer than with balanced binary trees, and lookup also didn't seem competitive. Anyway, I don't claim that my statistics are faked better than his... ;) Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr