3 ms·
I’m kind of tempted to re-run this test using LISTS, then SETS, then SORTED SETS just to see how they all compare from a storage point of view. Yes please, tha
by mahmud 16y ago
I’m kind of tempted to re-run this test using LISTS, then SETS, then SORTED SETS just to see how they all compare from a storage point of view.
Yes please, that would be much appreciated.
- jzawodn 16y agoI figured it'd be useful to do... just need to block off a bit of time. Perhaps in the next 24 hours if I'm lucky.
- yosh 16y agoI've noticed that sorted sets have noticeably more overhead than the other types.
- subwindow 16y agoIf that's true, I wonder why. Maybe is they are trying to get O(1) access? Storing it the 'default' way would be O(log n) which isn't bad, but might still be unacceptable.
- subwindow 16y agoAh, I found my answer. Sets are stored in both a skip list and a hash table. So the overhead is indeed high.