3 ms·
TIL. That's a huge flaw. Thanks so much for your response!
by iamjfu 7y ago
TIL. That's a huge flaw. Thanks so much for your response!
- modernerd 7y agoWelcome! It's the same for other data structures, by the way (not just slices) — maps are not safe for concurrent writes either. (The rationale seems to be that users of the data types can choose whether to make them safe for concurrent use or not depending on the use case.) I found this helpful: https://youtu.be/29LLRKIL_TI?t=1340 https://youtu.be/29LLRKIL_TI?t=1340
- masklinn 7y ago> The rationale seems to be that users of the data types can choose whether to make them safe for concurrent use or not depending on the use case. Also that for most uses a concurrent map is way overkill, and a thread-safe one is both costly and basically useless (hence the Java folks not keeping the thread-safety when migrating from Hashtable to HashMap). On the other hand they're kinda shit given how awful non-builtin data structures are in Go, and how easy it is to "leak" maps between goroutines.
- vips7L 7y agoHashtable used a giant mutex when locking.. it was just slow. Especially when compared to ConcurrentHashMap.
- irq-1 7y agoThey added sync.Map > Map is like a Go map[interface{}]interface{} but is safe for concurrent use by multiple goroutines without additional locking or coordination. Loads, stores, and deletes run in amortized constant time. https://golang.org/pkg/sync/#Map https://golang.org/pkg/sync/#Map