24 Mar
2011
24 Mar
'11
11:10 p.m.
On 03/24/2011 07:49 AM, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
Hi Olivier,
2011/3/19 Olivier Guilyardi <list(a)samalyse.com>om>:
Yes, same thing here, the wikipedia article ;) But it was rather fun to write.
There are quite a few things to improve, and I've realized that the remove()
function is broken. It's pretty experimental, but my first benchmarks are quite
good. I'll try and work some more on it soon.
I think that in the context of RDF, David expects many keys to share common
(sub)prefixes, and so the radix tree may be the more appropriate for speed, when
compared to a standard hash table.
With LV2, RDF is pretty small so it's really not a big deal IMO.. But sord could
also be used out of LV2 I guess, for some other RDF needs.
--
Olivier
On 03/18/2011 06:06 PM, Olivier Guilyardi wrote:
I see nobody answered yet... but don't despair, it's probably because
the long-awaited LV2r4 release made David want to run away for a
while. :-)
However, I have no idea why he needs such a thing and I have to admit
my ignorance in this regard (the only thing I ever read about radix
trees is the Wikipedia article, I'm afraid). Hi!
On 03/11/2011 07:22 PM, David Robillard wrote:
Attached is an
updated version with a couple of fixes and optimizations. On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:08 +0100, Olivier
Guilyardi wrote:
> I will try and submit a patch to remove glib. It'll take some time because I
> have dozens of other things to do, but I will work on this. I had a quick look
> at sord, it seems it only needs glib's sequence and hash table. Is this correct,
> or will you need some more utilities?
Overall I need sequence, hash table (or hash table like thing, I'll
probably use a radix tree)
Alright, attached is a minimal radix tree
implementation. I just wrote it from
scratch. Would that work for sord?
If so, I'll try and benchmark it and do some more tests.