On Tuesday, November 15, 2011, Justin Balthrop <jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote:
> My understanding from the talk was that RRB-Trees have performance > identical to PersistentVector as long as you don't concat or split > them. So why not just replace the PersistentVector implementation with > an RRB-Tree? I guess that could be a possibility but that would change the performance profile of some programs that actually use concat, ie concat would speed up and the other operations would slow (was it about 60%? can't remember the numbers here). So I think it should be opt in. Karl -- 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
