* Re: [Caml-list] Hashtbl or Set?
2011-09-19 20:09 [Caml-list] Hashtbl or Set? Ian Zimmerman
@ 2011-09-19 20:17 ` Basile Starynkevitch
2011-09-20 10:13 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Basile Starynkevitch @ 2011-09-19 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Zimmerman; +Cc: caml-list
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:09:39 -0700
Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> wrote:
>
> I need a somewhat large (thousands) set of strings, created once during
> startup and never modified after.
You didn't tell us why you need such as set, and what kind of strings are inside.
(I mean that if the strings are file contents -e.g. typically 100kbytes long-, it is
different than if the strings are dictionnary words or source program identifiers - e.g.
typically a dozen of bytes each-)
> What is a better choice, a (string, unit) Hashtbl.t or the Set module?
> If the Set module still uses trees
> as it did when I was young :-), access will be logarithmic versus
> constant for Hashtbl. But on the other hand a hash function must
> examine all of every string while the comparison of 2 strings stops at
> the first nonmatching character.
Honestly, I believe that for practical purposes, unless you have very strange
constraints, both approaches are good enough. Don't forget that too early optimization is
evil.
> I am thinking about the time to build the set as well as the probing
> time.
Make it a module, that is, your abstract data type. Then, if you discover later that this
module is a bottleneck, optimize it further.
Honestly, I think you should not care that much in the first place. (the real timing may
also depend of memory cache considerations and sizes).
Cheers.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [Caml-list] Hashtbl or Set?
2011-09-19 20:09 [Caml-list] Hashtbl or Set? Ian Zimmerman
2011-09-19 20:17 ` Basile Starynkevitch
@ 2011-09-20 10:13 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gerd Stolpmann @ 2011-09-20 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Zimmerman; +Cc: caml-list
Am Montag, den 19.09.2011, 13:09 -0700 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
> I need a somewhat large (thousands) set of strings, created once during
> startup and never modified after. What is a better choice, a (string,
> unit) Hashtbl.t or the Set module? If the Set module still uses trees
> as it did when I was young :-), access will be logarithmic versus
> constant for Hashtbl. But on the other hand a hash function must
> examine all of every string while the comparison of 2 strings stops at
> the first nonmatching character.
>
> I am thinking about the time to build the set as well as the probing
> time.
Nothing has changed so far. Besides naive Hashtbl and Set you have at
least two more options: Hashtbl with self-defined hash function (i.e.
one that stops after the n-th char), and Set with a hash-based
comparison function (i.e. compare first the hashes of the strings, and
only if the hashes are equal, compare the strings).
In my experience, for a large constant set a Hashtbl usually works best.
Set is usually only better when you can profit from functional updates.
Gerd
>
> --
> Ian Zimmerman
> gpg public key: 1024D/C6FF61AD
> fingerprint: 66DC D68F 5C1B 4D71 2EE5 BD03 8A00 786C C6FF 61AD
> Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Stolpmann, Darmstadt, Germany gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de
Creator of GODI and camlcity.org.
Contact details: http://www.camlcity.org/contact.html
Company homepage: http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
*** Searching for new projects! Need consulting for system
*** programming in Ocaml? Gerd Stolpmann can help you.
------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread