> I think it was unfortunate that "some thing like a hash table" was mentioned, > in passing, when the object feature was explained in detail.
Thanks *very* much for the clarification. Of course now, we don't even know that about object field indexes ;-) > it was simply a demo to show how using an object property name, which is case sensitive, > is much faster than "Find in array". that was all. Presumably, the comparison was with an unsorted array. A binary search is competitive with a hash table, depending a lot on the hash. And binary searches are great for range searches whereas hash tables are *not* optimized for ranges. So even here "faster" depends on what you're searching for and why. ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
