Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[oliver: Re: [Caml-list] Should be INSIDE STANDARD-LIB: Hashtbl.keys]
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-04-24 (09:20)
From: oliver@f...
Subject: Re: [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] Should be INSIDE STANDARD-LIB: Hashtbl.keys]
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 01:00:39PM +1000, skaller wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 06:09, Oliver Bandel wrote:
> > Because there is no Hashtbl.size in the standard lib,
> which sux because O(n) is a high price to pay
> for an integer the Hashtbl could keep track of
> easily.

What is the difference between both?

Do I understand you correctly?
You say, keeping track of a count does decrement the
performance dramaticaly?

How big is the performance difference between using a
count and using no count?


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: