From: reinert <reinkor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question on speed of set operations
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 23:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2019-04-01T23:03:45-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7dc5f35f-8924-4a6d-a2ac-b5d20527f2f6@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <q7u0mm$oq3$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
> >
> >> So what is the best alternative among the following tree procedures
> >> for the above purpose (in terms of *speed*):
> >
> > If I were you I would do some benchmarking.
>
> Agreed. I doubt that there is a portable answer; it would depend on the
> internal implementation of the container type (which is purposely left to
> the implementation).
>
> Randy.
And depending on the size of "New_Items" (as compared to the "Container"), I assume?
Seems like I end up with the first alternative (since, for me, "New_Items" is small.
reinert
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-02 6:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-29 22:39 Question on speed of set operations reinert
2019-03-29 23:11 ` Simon Wright
2019-04-01 21:43 ` Randy Brukardt
2019-04-02 6:03 ` reinert [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox