On 2006-09-05, Udo Stenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The culprit is insertWith, it inserts unevaluated thunks into your map
This turned out to be the answer -- thanks! I posted a new version of the code here: http://changelog.complete.org/posts/536-Another-Haskell-Solution-to-Lars-Problem.html This particular test set was a few hundred copies of the GPL. So the Map was fairly small, since each word occured many, many times -- but there weren't a whole lot of words. So the problem was not the inefficiency of Data.Map, nor the inefficiency of Strings (though that inefficiency does explain why the Python solution is faster, I'm sure). -- John _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
