From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F29BC0A for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:32:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l58AWsKE016718 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:32:56 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,399,1175437800"; d="scan'208";a="100741274" Received: from ppp2-129.lns1.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.2.129]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2007 20:02:53 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Labelling trees From: skaller To: Till Varoquaux Cc: David Teller , OCaml In-Reply-To: <9d3ec8300706080252g788deda5q1ee66a2e2873e6a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1181158983.9266.12.camel@Blefuscu> <1181178046.6546.54.camel@rosella.wigram> <9d3ec8300706070726o3ed62650ob73c832fdfa92617@mail.gmail.com> <1181257757.15201.27.camel@rosella.wigram> <9d3ec8300706080252g788deda5q1ee66a2e2873e6a1@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:32:52 +1000 Message-Id: <1181298772.6125.4.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46693056.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0200,:01 0200,:01 hash:01 hashing:01 hashing:01 parametrized:01 hashtable:01 sourceforge:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 fri:05 thu:05 On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 11:52 +0200, Till Varoquaux wrote: > On 6/8/07, skaller wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 16:26 +0200, Till Varoquaux wrote: > > > True, but the hash required would be unstable. > > > > Hashing or comparing using the value of a term as a key > > is no good. It's too slow. > > Hashing doesn't read the whole structure, it can be parametrized to > read less data. Do you really see a performance boost using addresses > instead? I have no idea because you can't.. what I did see when i tried map terms to values (using hashtable) .. was a slowdown ;( -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net