Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Faster union/intersection implementation for sets?
See original GitHub issueCurrent union (addAll) implementation for sets is O(logN * M) as far as I understand even when both sides have the same implementation.
It is certainly possible to improve that to log or even sub-log implementation for HAMTs by merging one-bit arrays only.
It is also possible to improve intersection, although atm you don’t even have a method for intersection in the API.
Not sure if it helps maps in any way, but I guess it does.
While intersection is questionable, union is a very important and widely used operation (especially so when + is overloaded as union) for persistent sets and implementing this doesn’t even need changing the api.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:10 (10 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
The asked optimisation was implemented by @belyaev-mikhail and merged to
master(690343ace1aa4a47463f2ce42ae319876014ee47).Ok, so I implemented the array element checking, did some benchmarks and it does not seem to introduce much overhead (or any at all, for that matter).