On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, Daniel Fischer <daniel.is.fisc...@web.de> wrote: > Am Montag 22 Juni 2009 21:31:50 schrieb Kamil Dworakowski: > > > > > On Jun 22, 6:46 am, Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.zigans...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello Kamil, > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:01:40 AM, you wrote: > > > > Right... Python uses hashtables while here I have a tree with log n > > > > you can try this pure hashtable approach: > > > > import Prelude hiding (lookup) > > > import qualified Data.HashTable > > > import Data.Array > > > import qualified Data.List as List > > > > data HT a b = HT (a->Int) (Array Int [(a,b)]) > > > > -- size is the size of array (we implent closed hash) > > > -- hash is the hash function (a->Int) > > > -- list is assoclist of items to put in hash > > > create size hash list = HT hashfunc > > > (accumArray (flip (:)) > > > [] > > > (0, arrsize-1) > > > (map (\(a,b) -> (hashfunc a,b)) > > Typo: should be > > map (\(a,b) -> (hashfunc a, (a,b))
Wait! Have you typed that definition into the msg off the top of your head? :) I went back to using Strings instead of ByteStrings and with that hashtable the program finishes in 31.5s! w00t! _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
