On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 19:41, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Brian Pane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Here's a modification of Joe Schaefer's table patch that uses > > a mergesort to do apr_table_compress and apr_table_overlap. > > > > This will ensure a worst-case run time of n*log(n) instead > > of n^2. However, I'm not sure whether the extra complexity > > of the mergesort will hurt the performance on small data > > sets. Joe, if you have time to test this patch, can you > > let me know how it performs compared to your patch? > > Certainly, Brian! I'll post my oprofile data as soon > as I get a chance, perhaps in a day or so. OTOH for apreq-2, > the most important part of my original patch was the > internal use of the copy/merge callbacks.
Thanks! > Is there some technical reason you omitted them from this > patch, or are you leaving out the callback API until there's > consensus on the apr_table_overlap implementation? I used the merge/set flag instead of the callbacks mainly because it seemed like a good idea at the time to use the same flag convention for apr_table_compress as for apr_table_overlap. But if the callback approach works better for apreq-2, then I don't have any objections to using callbacks in the final patch. Brian
