On Monday, July 18, 2011 9:12:05 AM UTC-6, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote: > > Hi, > > *snip* > > However with a different performance promise, I believe. >
Hi Meikel, I took a look at the source for subseq, and you're right. To be specific, when the comparison operation is either > or >=, seqFrom allows subseq to get to the elements of interest in O(log n) steps, whereas drop-while needs O(n) steps to do the same. On the other hand, it looks like when the elements of interest are at the beginning of the collection (using < or <= as comparison operation), subseq and take-while should perform the same, since subseq simply uses take-while to iterate through the elements of interest in this case. To make a long story short, when using > or >=, use subseq instead of drop-while, especially if the elements of interest are deep in the collection or the same collection will be accessed multiple times. When using < or <=, subseq and take-while should have the same performance. Does that sound about right? -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
