On 04 Aug 2014, at 9:31 , Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de> wrote: > 2014-08-04 8:50 GMT+02:00 Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no>: > > On 03 Aug 2014, at 5:55 , Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Right, current hash is bad and long to compute. > > > > I think we should use instead > > BasicIndexedEyeElement >> hash > > ^ index hashMultiply > > > > host identityHash and index hash may lead to many collisions... > > What do you think ? > > > > I agree there’s not much value in including host in the hash for the use case > of the icon lookup cache, since those were per host anyways (iirc). > Index hash will be a sequential number, I haven’t checked the usage closely > to see if it’ll be a problem wrt. collisions, but removal at least might be > slow (if that’s ever done) due to lots of scanning needed to find the nil > slot. Using hashMultiply seems a good precaution. > > Cheers, > Henry > > > And as far as I know, the icon lookup isn't needed for the inspector, as it > does not show any icons at all!
Well, it still needs to figure out there is no icon to be displayed for the entry… In that process, it caches the result (nil), and that cache is too expensive to query later on, due to the expensive hash calculation needed to find an entry. Cheers, Henry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
