Feedback request: priority queues in containers

[Simon Marlow]

On 17/03/2010 16:48, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Louis Wasserman
> <wasserman.louis at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I'd concur, but I haven't been able to install Criterion yet.  =(
>>
>> Let me rewrite things with BenchPress, and see what happens.
>
> As the author of BenchPress I'd encourage you to use Criterion as
> BenchPress was written to benchmark medium size I/O actions (such as
> HTTP requests) and not (small) pure computations.
>
>> I should add, though, that I think C *is* as optimized as D.  In particular,
>> some of the tricks that worked with D only worked because of the way the
>> spines were arranged.  (For instance, unrolling the children incrementally
>> was a trick that really worked because the children and the trees in the
>> spine were lined up, which meant that it needed the Skip combinator.)
>>
>> Simon: I wasn't sure what to do there, because e.g. Data.Map, I think, is
>> strict that way.  I prefer the lazy way, though, so I certainly don't mind
>> keeping it lazy =)
>
> Simon, we really need a good concurrent benchmark for this stuff as
> most (all) of the data types in containers are strict in the spine.

I know.  I'll try to get to this sometime.  In the meantime just 
optimise for sequential performance, and don't add strictness just for 
the sake of it.

Cheers,
	Simon