A datastructure I fancy is hash tables. But I found out that hashtables in
guile are really slow, How? First of all we make a hash table
(define h (make-hash-table))
Then add values
(for-each (lambda (i) (hash-set! h i i)) (iota 2000))
Then the following operation cost say 5s
(hash-fold (lam
The hash table in Guile is rather standard (at least according to what was
standard in the old ages :). (I *have* some vague memory that I might have
implemented a simpler/faster table at some point, but that is not in the
code base now.)
The structure is a vector of alists. It's of course importa
(Note that the resizing means *rehashing* of all elements.)
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:17 PM Mikael Djurfeldt
wrote:
> The hash table in Guile is rather standard (at least according to what was
> standard in the old ages :). (I *have* some vague memory that I might have
> implemented a simpler/f
Hi,
I did some research about guile's hashtables and have tried a few versions
of it in guile scheme from using enormous macro expansions to goops object
oriented layers. What I found is
1. For small hashtables, scheme based solutions are superior to C based
2-3X faster for a hastables of size 40
Le 19/02/2022 à 22:25, Olivier Dion a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
I had similar problem with Jami. I added C++ primitives to Guile, but
these were not load using the foreign function interface. Note, I'm
using Guile 3.0.8, but I think the same could be done for Guil
Stefan Israelsson Tampe schreef op di 22-02-2022 om 00:05 [+0100]:
> 2. For very large hash tables C based solutions are about 1.5-2.0
> faster.
> (for-each (lambda (i) (hashq-set! h i i)) (iota 2000))
For what sizes is Scheme faster, and for what sizes is Scheme faster?
Where is the cut-off
