Browse thread
Canonical Set/Map datastructure?
[
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: | 2008-03-06 (07:41) |
From: | Jean-Christophe Filliâtre <Jean-Christophe.Filliatre@l...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Canonical Set/Map datastructure? |
Jon Harrop wrote: > On Wednesday 05 March 2008 17:27:38 Alain Frisch wrote: >> Patricia trees work fine when the set elements can easily be represented >> as strings of bits. >> ... >> structural equality = physical equality = set equality > > This is very interesting. What are the disadvantages? I'm guessing: slow value > creation for small values and heavy memory consumption. Regarding memory consumpion, it is true that hash-consing tables are using memory, but sharing structurally equal values may also save some space; see for instance the benchmarks on page 4 of http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/ftp/publis/hash-consing2.ps -- Jean-Christophe