But, would that buy me anything in terms of Squeak performance (except
for the initial allocation and tenuring overhead)?

Assuming the follow:
- I have enough memory for the huge object
- I have time to allocate it and tenure it
- It will stay around for a long time
- There will only be one of these monsters, and it won't be recreated
very often (and when it is, it will not be time critical)
- The collection is a Set and the hash functions of the elements are
built to scale (to at least the size of the Set)
- that the Set will be filled quickly

With these assumptions, I don't see where I would benefit from a bucket
hash, except if there were some benefit to GC (after the initial
allocation and tenuring).  Is there?

Of course...this is really hypothetical, a reasonable cache would
probably be in the hundreds of thousands to say 1 million, not in the
hundreds of millions.

- Stephen 

> Consider a bucket cache. A collection of collections, each 
> one representing a range of the cache. I think the symbol 
> table might be implemented that way at the moment?
> 
> tim
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, 
> http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim Useful > random insult:- One 
> pearl short of a necklace.
> 
> 
>