On Sep 5, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:Hello Bertram, Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 12:24:57 PM, you wrote:A quick hack up to use Data.ByteString uses a lot less ram, though profiling still shows 95% of time spent in the building the Map.Data.HashTable may be a faster alternative for Map (if ordering isn't required)I found Data.HashTable a bit slow (ghc 6.4). Perhaps HsJudy (see http://cmarcelo.blogspot.com/ and http://judy.sourceforge.net/ and http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell@haskell.org/msg18766.html )
I'd urge programmers to give the version of Data.HashTable in 6.6 a try. It uses a simple multiplicative hash function (a la Knuth) which seems to be dramatically better in practice. It also uses a rather simpler hash table implementation which seems to perform slightly better in practice (if this isn't true for your application I'm keen to know).
As Udo Stenzel points out, we still need to examine the entire string in order to hash, and some problems may do better with something like a StringMap---I understand many information retrieval applications use Trie-like data structures for exactly this reason.
-Jan-Willem Maessen
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
