38 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
38 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
From: cppdan at dansmart.com (Daniel Smart)
|
|
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:38:50 GMT
|
|
Subject: Time complexity of dictionary insertions
|
|
References: <glmpv4vnhh6.fsf@caffeine.mitre.org> <000901be8e11$b4842560$f09e2299@tim>
|
|
Message-ID: <8DB21A313Me@news.rdc1.ct.home.com>
|
|
X-UID: 1308
|
|
|
|
[posted and mailed]
|
|
|
|
Tim Peters <tim_one at email.msn.com> wrote in
|
|
<000901be8e11$b4842560$f09e2299 at tim>:
|
|
|
|
>[someone asks about the time complexity of Python dict insertions]
|
|
>
|
|
>[Tim replies]
|
|
>[one person confuses the issue]
|
|
>[and another compounds it]
|
|
>This one-ups-man-ship would be a lot cuter if Python's dict insertion
|
|
>were in fact amortized constant time <0.9 wink>. It's not, and the
|
|
>answer I gave doesn't imply that it is. Insertion in STL hashed
|
|
>associative containers isn't ACT either.
|
|
>
|
|
This attempt at one-ups-man-ship would be a lot cuter if the STL had any
|
|
kind of hashed containers, associative or otherwise, whose performance
|
|
could be quoted! <tentative wink>
|
|
|
|
>reassuringly y'rs - tim
|
|
|
|
Argumentatively y'rs - dan.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Dan Smart. C++ Programming and Mentoring.
|
|
cppdan at dansmart.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|