From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2009-02-02T22:21:48+09:00
Subject: Re: Quicker finding strings? Alternative for array, hash, set?

2009/2/2 Patrick Put <patrick.put@gmail.com>:
>> Rehearsal -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Array#find existing       3.160000   0.700000   3.860000 (  3.870061)
>> Array#find non-existing   6.280000   1.630000   7.910000 (  7.935304)
>> Hash#[] existing          0.000000   0.000000   0.000000 (  0.000019)
>> Hash#[] non-existing      0.000000   0.000000   0.000000 (  0.000018)
>> ------------------------------------------------- total: 11.770000sec
>>
>>                               user     system      total        real
>> Array#find existing       3.130000   0.710000   3.840000 (  3.866618)
>> Array#find non-existing   5.820000   1.580000   7.400000 (  9.195417)
>> Hash#[] existing          0.000000   0.000000   0.000000 (  0.000030)
>> Hash#[] non-existing      0.000000   0.000000   0.000000 (  0.000032)
>
> That is impressive indeed! No need for any other containers here I
> guess. ;-) Thanks for showing me this!

If you do not want to attach information to those words then a Set is
more appropriate: same O(1) lookup but no key value mapping.

Cheers

robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end