to qualify the "simple" part, I was saying that I wanted to restrict myself to just calling what's in clojure and clojure-contrib, mostly. "simple" from my user perspective, since another part of the study could easily include building a data structure on top of what's already in clojure.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm continuing to think about this priority queue stuff, now looking at > "meld", and wondering what would be the best way to approximate it with > what's in clojure right now ... core data structures and simple algorithms. > > for example, I could populate two vectors O(n), sort them O(n(log(n))), and > implement the O(n) merge part of merge-sort. Then popping things off the > front would easily be O(1). > > I'd compare that with the practical runtime of the heap, which has a > theoretical runtime of O(n) for all the inserts, no time for any up front > sorting, and O(log(n)) for merging (or possibly O(1) time with more > coding). Again the main work would be the O(log(n)) pops, > > but I want to just compare the meld speeds right now. > > sorted-sets aren't really right because of the uniqueness of elements, but > I could try that, too, doing a join/union of two sorted sets. > > granted I haven't looked through contrib much ... I need to figure out how > to access/include it from my current evironment/IDE (clojure-dev right now) > > Thanks for the help. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
