Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
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: -- (:)
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?

Ciao,
   Oliver

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners