From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id HAA29567; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:37:17 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA30026 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:37:16 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from wetware.com (wetware.wetware.com [199.108.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6V5bFEV004692 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:37:16 +0200 Received: from [208.177.152.17] (helo=[10.0.1.9]) by wetware.com with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BqmYU-0006oQ-No; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:37:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <16646.64470.304530.264731@soggy.deldotd.com> <16647.5177.849829.421587@soggy.deldotd.com> <4107544C.4040502@baretta.com> <410898F0.6030804@baretta.com> <41097D53.5050607@baretta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ocaml Trade From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: [Caml-list] kaplan-okasaki-tarjan deque (was "looping recursion") Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:37:16 -0700 To: brogoff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 410B300B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; woodyatt:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 caml-list:01 deque:01 recursion:01 brogoff:01 deques:01 marshall:01 wire:99 sigh:01 wastes:01 inefficient:01 wrote:03 btw:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 30 Jul 2004, at 14:20, brogoff wrote: > > BTW, what did your comparisons tell you? It told me that my implementation was enough faster that it was worth the price of having to convert between deques and lists in order to marshall them to disk or on the wire, with noticeable savings even after that. I can't remember the numbers right now. At one time, I thought it would be worth the effort of writing an academic paper on the subject, but I never learned how to write an academic paper so it will get published. So I haven't tried. Sigh. One of the questions that remains unanswered is how much time my implementation of Kaplan-Okasaki-Tarjan wastes being inefficient about handling the fixed size buffers. My gut tells me there's room for improvement there, but not enough to overcome the advantage my implementation has over it. I need to measure that. ― ∴ ------------------- 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