4 ms·
Modern HAMTs are faster than your run of the mill hash table, the "constant" vs. "logarithmic" is misleading here. The HAMT will be log32 or log16 N and will h
by coolsunglasses 12y ago
Modern HAMTs are faster than your run of the mill hash table, the "constant" vs. "logarithmic" is misleading here.
The HAMT will be log32 or log16 N and will have runs of values that play very nicely with the caching behavior of the processor if you find yourself traversing more than one value.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoWith log N > 2, you have to pay extra space costs. This can be worse than a simple binary tree. Locality is also a problem for high-performance applications, but the HPC people would never go near this stuff anyways.