John Boyle scripsit: > write/fast consistently takes 4500-4700 milliseconds to print all of these > structures out, which makes sense, because it does the same amount of work > on each cons cell, no matter how long the tail of the list is. Over the > range of structures with 40 cons cells to those with 40,000 cons cells, > "write/safe" is generally 10% slower than "write/fast". At 400,000 cons > cells, "write/safe" takes 33% longer (6100 msec), and at 4 million, 65% > longer (7600 msec). This seems consistent with my estimate of "O(n) -> O(n > log n), or perhaps O(n), depending on exactly how hash-eqs work". And > incidentally, at 4 cons cells, write/fast took 5400 and write/safe took > 6400 msec (20% slower).
If you have the data handy, how much space did the hash-eq occupy, as distinct from how many elements it had in it? -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all. Some caitiff rogue did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits yet wander." An Englishman: "Ay, belike a filchman to the nab'll leave you crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
