From: Daniel James (daniel_james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-19 16:52:31
On 19/12/2007, Jamie Allsop <ja11sop_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> First apologies for the belated review and its brevity - I really had
> hoped I'd have time to be more thorough, but here goes.
Thanks for reviewing the library - suggestions are always welcome,
especially help with improving the documentation. I'll look into your
suggestions soon (they all look worthwhile).
> One thing that would be nice are some performance details, perhaps
> comparisons against some other library implementations using the same
> has function. Just a thought.
A problem is that some implementations require better quality hash
functions because they use a power of 2 for the number of buckets. So
it's probably worth trying a some different hash functions.
> I haven't done a lot of work with hash containers before (I
> haven't needed to). I DO need to make heavy use of them now so this
> library is very timely. I've unfortunately not been able to get time to
> replace our existing implementation with this one and do a performance
I did some informal benchmarking a while ago and found the gcc version
to be a little faster (sorry, I didn't record the figures). I think
this was partly because it doesn't fully support allocators. I'm a bit
weary of publishing artificial speed comparisons so some serious real
life comparisons would be very useful.
I'll see if I can dig out my benchmarks, they used boost headers as
test data so they weren't completely unrealistic.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk