From: "Shot (Piotr Szotkowski)" <shot@...>
Date: 2007-02-01T00:26:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Benchmark results

--y1+kC1Q2udlVMFpc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pit Capitain:

> The advantage of Mauricio's solution is that you can use it even if
> the Set elements are not comparable to each other. My proposal was
> meant for your use case with integers as Set elements.

Ah, right. Still, blocks will contain integers only, so
Array#sort-based Block#hash and Set#=3D=3D-based Block#eql?
should suffice.

> With this benchmark, you also measure the time needed to construct
> the Block instances. If you want to compare the two #hash methods,
> you should change your benchmark to something like:

D=E2=80=99oh! Why did I think moving the array creation
out was the most I can get to unbias the benchmark?

> From your benchmark, you can see that it takes a lot of time to
> compute the hash values. Will your sets contain 1_000_000 elements?
> How often will they change? How are they created? Maybe you need to
> cache the hash values or implement a different hash algorithm.

I don=E2=80=99t know, yet. I was just curious whether the elements=E2=80=99=
-hash-based
hash algorithm would be any faster than the just-sort-based one (given
that from a quick glance it seemed to incorporate additional work); now
I understand its advantage lies elsewhere.

Thanks a lot for your input!

-- Shot
--=20
In ObjectSpace, nobody can hear you quack.   -- Luc Heinrich, ruby-talk

--y1+kC1Q2udlVMFpc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFwLVDi/mCfdEo8UoRAsuVAKDMVd+6RmEPSHHQsCOrXXqBakE20wCfXvB1
JLXtquzRt2fRlEkJqjWMIOI=
=e9W6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--y1+kC1Q2udlVMFpc--