Boost logo

Boost :

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at