Re: Alternative Hashtbl and lwt yield-like functionality questions

[Thomas Gazagnaire <thomas.gazagnaire@xxxxxxxxx>]

> thanks for the idea. Although, I don't think that an array is
> appropriate for my problem as I want to have the 0(1) lookup
> complexity that the Hashtbl provides.

I don't get it. Why do you need to read the data you are producing while your 
test is running ?

> In any case, what I did was to
> reduce the size of the experiment. It was though a surprise to me how
> inefficient memory-wise is the Hashtbl in comparison to c structures.

it is really depending on the data-structure you are using. If you have a know 
in advance the size of your data, and you want to have constant time 
read/write, you can use arrays. If your data is not bound, the only way it to 
amortize your costs. I'm curious to know which kind of C structure does a 
better job here.

--
Thomas

> On 14 December 2011 14:04, Thomas Gazagnaire
> <thomas.gazagnaire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> How long does you test longs ? Do you really want to store your data in a 
>> structured way ?
>> What you can do to avoid too much allocation during your test is to allocate 
>> an array each second (say of size 70K), and once filled, to store it in a 
>> mutable list and allocate a new array to continue your test. When you test 
>> is finished, you can analyze your mutable list and build your association 
>> table using the data-structure you want.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charalampos Rotsos
> PhD student
> The University of Cambridge
> Computer Laboratory
> William Gates Building
> JJ Thomson Avenue
> Cambridge
> CB3 0FD
> 
> Phone: +44-(0) 1223 767032
> Email: cr409@xxxxxxxxxxxx