dons00 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 6 05:37:20 CEST 2011
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:
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?
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).
> 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:
>> 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
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
More information about the Libraries