From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-03-01T06:11:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Is Ruby slower?

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:02:58PM +0900, MikkelFJ wrote:
> 
> I have been working with Jenkins hash - I can't say if is the best, but it
> appears to be pretty good.
> I did an optimization on the hash function to operate on exactly 32bits in
> order get a fast integer map that grows and shrinks dynamically and which
> remembers the order of insertion - so it is an indexed list. 

We can use it to make sparse arrays if it's faster than st.c...

> I'm not sure if
> is any good in Ruby, but it is available upon request. It's only really
> faster than red/black trees (STL) when there many elements, more than 1000
> elements and possibly slightly slower with less than 100 elements.

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

'Ooohh.. "FreeBSD is faster over loopback, when compared to Linux
over the wire". Film at 11.'
	-- Linus Torvalds