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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:7f52:: with SMTP id r79mr7485784itc.33.1554185026284;
        Mon, 01 Apr 2019 23:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:355:: with SMTP id 82mr3349479oid.30.1554185026026;
 Mon, 01 Apr 2019 23:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!136no81601itk.0!news-out.google.com!l81ni92itl.0!nntp.google.com!78no81823itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 23:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <q7u0mm$oq3$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=84.214.208.229;
 posting-account=bPTmZAoAAAC_6HP9XLKB9aAAxBa6BuOR
NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.214.208.229
References: <b5bbc7b4-f685-4392-b8cd-b3f971c2b564@googlegroups.com>
 <lyh8bl2s3u.fsf@pushface.org> <q7u0mm$oq3$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7dc5f35f-8924-4a6d-a2ac-b5d20527f2f6@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question on speed of set operations
From: reinert <reinkor@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 06:03:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56043
Date: 2019-04-01T23:03:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> >
> >> 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