From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
Date: 2003-05-26T21:11:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Binary Tree vs. Hash

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 06:29:23PM +0900, Xiangrong Fang wrote:
> I have no good way to measure this. What I did is to watch the *total*
> memory required by the program, with or without the hash. I don't know
> if there is a way to do what you mentioned. May be some ruby experts
> know?

You are probably creating a lot of temporary garbage objects, so you're
measuring the size of hash + garbage pool.

You could try 'GC.start' to do garbage collection, but I don't know if Ruby
then un-mallocs the storage and returns it to the O/S.

> In my program lookup is very freqent, but update is rare. I tried using
> Array.include? , but it seems is using seqential search, not binary. The
> performance is unbearable. Does anyone know if ruby's internal
> Array.include? is using binary search or not?

It doesn't, because Array doesn't have any requirement to be sorted.

Regards,

Brian.