On 19 sept. 05, at 09:26, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Avi Bryant wrote:
>
>> Seconded.  It uses quite a bit more memory than a standard  
>> Dictionary,
>> but the performance appears to be impressively flat while growing to
>> very large sizes, even when using the anemic #identityHash.
>>
>
> But you are aware that the current behavior is the result of a very  
> particular set initialization that is easily fixed, yes? Changing  
> the initial set capacity from 3 to 5 will *dramatically* improve  
> the behavior ;-)

So send a fix so that we change the default.

Now what I understood is that the degeneration is bad in the current  
implementation, since collisions
generates more chance that other collision will occur. So on large  
dicts this is dramatic.

> Besides, I'd be much more interested in a hashtable/dictionary  
> implementation that preserves ordering (e.g., if an element is  
> added before another it will be enumerated before the other) to  
> preserve consistency in a replicated computation. I'll definitely  
> need to look into this so if anyone has an implementation I'm all  
> ears...

Does the default one preserve ordering?  Not that nothing prevent us  
to have two kind of dictionary
with specific behavior.

Stef

>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>