This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: avl-trees vs. hashes

To: guile@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
From: Tel <telford@eng.uts.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:55:45 +1100
References: <Pine.A32.3.96.981020155330.23864A-100000@jay.giss.nasa.gov> <m2ww5vymcx.fsf@blinky.bfr.co.il> <19981026110204.60258@localhost> <m2yaq3eq6o.fsf@blinky.bfr.co.il>
Reply-To: telford@eng.uts.edu.au

> Nope.  Resizing hashtables are still O(1) for insertions.  See the
> previous discussions & 3 independently posted analyses.  God, I wish
> this list had a shorter turn-around time.

My fault, I got back from holidays and had enough mail banked up to
overload my internal garbage collector.

	- Tel

References:
- Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
  - From: Jay Glascoe <jglascoe@jay.giss.nasa.gov>
- Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
  - From: hjstein@bfr.co.il (Harvey J. Stein)
- Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
  - From: Tel <telford@eng.uts.edu.au>
- Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
  - From: hjstein@bfr.co.il (Harvey J. Stein)
- Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
  - From: hjstein@bfr.co.il (Harvey J. Stein)

Prev by Date: Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
Next by Date: Re: gh_enter reconsidered
Prev by thread: Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
Next by thread: Re: avl-trees vs. hashes
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]