Data.HashTable performance

[Don Stewart]

Actually, Data.HashTable got some good attention recently from Simon
Marlow (modifying the GC), and Johan Tibell and others looking at
containers performance in general:

   http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3058529/curious-about-the-hashtable-problem/3058559#3058559

   http://blog.johantibell.com/2011/03/video-of-my-hashing-based-containers.html

Certainly, being in IO limits the utility of a hashtable library
(since it isn't thread safe or persistent by default), but that
doesn't mean the structure gets neglected.

Johan, what's your thoughts on the status?

-- Don

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Thomas DuBuisson
<thomas.dubuisson at gmail.com> wrote:
> The hashtable in base is used very little by the Haskell community,
> partly due to it being IO heavy and partly a result of its known
> performance issues that no one seems motivated to address.  I suggest
> you look at the unordered-containers package which is rather new but
> positioned to become the de facto standard.  Currently, many people
> needing a key/value mapping lean on Data.Map from the containers
> package (a balanced tree).
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Frank Kuehnel <vincef13 at mac.com> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, I've tested a few Hashtable implementations:
>> http://zufaellige-reflektion.blogspot.com/2011/04/associative-arrays-showdown.html
>> Are there any clues why Haskell's Data.HashTable doesn't perform better?
>> I would have expected a similar performance like with F# on the Mono 2.0
>> platform.
>> Thanks,
>> Frank
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>