Subject: Re: [boost] [ boost ] [ Trie ]
From: Cosmin Boaca (boost.cosmin.boaca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-15 12:58:05
I have runned benchmarks on the original implementation. It works slightly
better even than the implementation based on std::map.
Insertion time on benchmarks it's about -0.4 seconds better and I can't
figure out why. That implementation updates 4 additional pointers and the
current implementation does only one copy for updating the value. Also,
node size is smaller. I don't understand how the original implementation
can be more cache friendly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk