From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DIET_1 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,693e247f5dca709d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How to use associative arrays in Ada 2005?
Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:53:43 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1164657223.760376.158200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1164103903.240838.37230@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <u7ixorigx.fsf@earthlink.net>
   <1164152113.623461.130190@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
   <1164310051.811802.237400@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
   <14xluht6idlik$.1cxod3mnfvcfs.dlg@40tude.net>
   <upsbdhxlo.fsf@earthlink.net>
   <1164567954.228842.32980@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <1tt24us1dtxxk$.4j9ua533yewd$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.162.65.129
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1164657229 29126 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2006 19:53:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:53:49 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1tt24us1dtxxk$.4j9ua533yewd$.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
 .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.162.65.129;
   posting-account=Zl1UPAwAAADEsUSm1PMMiDjihtBlZUi_
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7710
Date: 2006-11-27T11:53:43-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
> That depends on each concrete case. Arrays of arrays have advantages and
> disadvantages. It is to expect a performance penalty in terms of both space
> and time for an hash of hash of hash vs. simple hash. Clearly, instead of
> one look-up you are doing three.

Yawn.  A hash-table look-up is O(1).  It's like trying to argue that
you'll lose weight by only eating 1 pea instead of 3 peas for dinner...