From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA17890; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:20:04 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA17888 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:20:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hirsch.in-berlin.de (hirsch.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.6]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3O9K2YM003965 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:20:02 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from hirsch.in-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hirsch.in-berlin.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with ESMTP id i3O9K27Y024369 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:20:02 +0200 Received: from first.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by hirsch.in-berlin.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with UUCP id i3O95Pmw023533 for inria.fr!caml-list; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:05:25 +0200 Received: by first.in-berlin.de via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.114) Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:56:21 +0200 (CEST) From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de (Oliver Bandel) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:56:21 +0200 To: caml-list@inria.fr Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] Should be INSIDE STANDARD-LIB: Hashtbl.keys] Message-ID: <20040424085621.GA1019@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20040423200923.GA271@first.in-berlin.de> <1082775638.21205.687.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1082775638.21205.687.camel@pelican.wigram> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 in-berlin:01 oliver:01 bandel:01 caml-list:01 hashtbl:01 2004:99 2004:99 bandel:01 hashtbl:01 sux:99 lib:01 ciao:02 wrote:03 wrote:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 01:00:39PM +1000, skaller wrote: > On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 06:09, Oliver Bandel wrote: > > > Because there is no Hashtbl.size in the standard lib, > > which sux because O(n) is a high price to pay > for an integer the Hashtbl could keep track of > easily. What is the difference between both? Do I understand you correctly? You say, keeping track of a count does decrement the performance dramaticaly? How big is the performance difference between using a count and using no count? Ciao, Oliver ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners