On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:27:21 +0200 (CEST), Andrea Arcangeli
<andrea@e-mind.com> said:
> It's not so obvious to me. I sure agree that an O(n) insertion/deletion is
> far too slow but a O(log(n)) for everything could be rasonable to me. And
> trees don't worry about unluky hash behavior.
Trees are O(log n) for insert/delete, with a high constant of
proportionality (ie. there can be quite a lot of work to be done even
for small log n). Trees also occupy more memory per node. Hashes are
O(1) for insert and delete, and are a _fast_ O(1). The page cache needs
fast insert and delete.
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/