Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Convert to 0-unsafe code or try Raw API? #1

Open
PsiACE opened this issue Mar 4, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Convert to 0-unsafe code or try Raw API? #1

PsiACE opened this issue Mar 4, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@PsiACE
Copy link
Owner

PsiACE commented Mar 4, 2021

I noticed that @quininer has implemented a 0-unsafe LinkedHashMap.
See https://github.com/quininer/linkedhashmap . It seems that 0-unsafe has no loss in performance.

I have no prejudice against unsafe, I just think it is a very interesting work.
@PsiACE PsiACE added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Mar 4, 2021
@PsiACE
Copy link
Owner Author

PsiACE commented Mar 4, 2021

After testing, when the number of allocations is large enough (like 1‹‹22 ) , quininer/linkedhashmap will become very slow ( 4x ) . Is there any other appropriate improvement method?

@PsiACE PsiACE changed the title Convert to 0-unsafe code? Convert to 0-unsafe code or try Raw API? Mar 7, 2021
@PsiACE
Copy link
Owner Author

PsiACE commented Mar 7, 2021

Another possible way to improve is to use the Raw API in hashbrown and griddle, I am not sure whether it can bring a performance improvement, but it is undoubtedly a challenge worth trying.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@PsiACE