Feedback request: priority queues in containers

Simon Marlow marlowsd at
Wed Mar 17 08:47:32 EDT 2010

On 17/03/2010 00:17, Louis Wasserman wrote:

> I tested, and this implementation actually performs better if the spine
> is maintained lazily, so we'll test that version.

May I request that, unless there's a significant speedup from using a 
strict spine, that you use a lazy spine where possible.  The reason 
being that lazy data structures work much better in a parallel setting: 
a strict spine is a course-grained lock on the whole operation, whereas 
a lazy spine corresponds to a fine-grained locking strategy.

Apart from this, as you were ;)


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list