apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <brian.p...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] table patch using mergesort Re: Frankentables
Date Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:24:24 GMT
On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 19:41, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Brian Pane <brian.pane@cnet.com> writes:
> > Here's a modification of Joe Schaefer's table patch that uses
> > a mergesort to do apr_table_compress and apr_table_overlap.
> > 
> > This will ensure a worst-case run time of n*log(n) instead
> > of n^2.  However, I'm not sure whether the extra complexity
> > of the mergesort will hurt the performance on small data
> > sets.  Joe, if you have time to test this patch, can you
> > let me know how it performs compared to your patch?
> Certainly, Brian! I'll post my oprofile data as soon
> as I get a chance, perhaps in a day or so. OTOH for apreq-2, 
> the most important part of my original patch was the 
> internal use of the copy/merge callbacks.


> Is there some technical reason you omitted them from this 
> patch, or are you leaving out the callback API until there's 
> consensus on the apr_table_overlap implementation?

I used the merge/set flag instead of the callbacks mainly
because it seemed like a good idea at the time to use the
same flag convention for apr_table_compress as for
apr_table_overlap.  But if the callback approach works
better for apreq-2, then I don't have any objections to
using callbacks in the final patch.


View raw message