3 ms·
If 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 un
by subwindow 16y ago
If 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.