![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In <199809151131.EAA10342@dm.cobaltmicro.com>, on 09/15/98 at 04:31 AM, "David S. Miller" <davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com> said: > From: "Koshelev Maximka" <iloveselfme@hotmail.com> > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:56:29 PDT > I am thinking this method can give better perfomance becouse tree > becomes smaller in N times, where N is a number of elements in hash > array. >It is an interesting data structure, thanks for presenting it. But it >still has one of the fundamental problems we were trying to remove by >going to a non-tree mechanism, the balancing cost. Seems to me that the suggested structure offer the best of both worlds: The cases with few items won't have much balancing cost because the hash array ensures that most trees have a root node only. Cases with lots of items will have balancing cost, but they will also benefit from the trees. Helge Hafting -- ----------------------------------------------------------- helge.hafting@daldata.no ----------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||