[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Umm, the reason that the hash is slow is that it only hashes string type
>values. The test you were using had numeric values. Try your tests with
>strings and you should see a significant difference and I will add numeric
>values to the hash as well for the next release...
Doh! My mistake :(
At least this means that hash! improves find as well.
Good news, that!
>However, I'm not planning on hashing block values...
Darn. Time to rewrite my improved memoize :(
While you're at it, can you add a /skip option to
find and select that mirrors the same option for
sort? This would help greatly with REBOL database
work in the block-of-fixed-records style.
Brian
>At 06:31 PM 7/7/2000 -0500, Brian wrote:
>>Ladislav wrote:
>>>My experiment was raher related to Brian's Memoize, or other
>>>simple associative structures. The result is, that for structures
>>>containing more than 4 096 elements, the natives Find, Select,...
>>>can successfully be replaced by some appropriately designed
>>>approaches.
>>
>>Associative structures are best accessed with select, not
>>find. The hash! type optimizes select, but is no faster
>>than a block with find, as far as I can tell.
