umgeher/erlware_commons
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Activity

For formulae, used Markdown math mode

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Ariel 2023-12-18 20:33:17 +01:00
parent 6d4c471ff6
commit 5c5c264241
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
doc/signatures.md
View file

@ -17,13 +17,13 @@ implement a dictionary. Just a few are:
* Many, many more .... * Many, many more ....
Each of these approaches has their own performance characteristics, Each of these approaches has their own performance characteristics,
memory footprints etc. For example, a table of size n with open memory footprints, etc. For example, a table of size $n$ with open
addressing has no collisions and holds up to n elements, with a single addressing has no collisions and holds up to $n$ elements, with a single
comparison for successful lookup, and a table of size n with chaining comparison for successful lookup, and a table of size $n$_ with chaining
and k keys has the minimum max(0, k-n) collisions and O(1 + k/n) and $k$ keys has the minimum $\max(0, k-n)$ collisions and $\mathcal{O}(1 + k/n)$
comparisons for lookup. While for skip lists the performance comparisons for lookup. While for skip lists the performance
characteristics are about as good as that of randomly-built binary characteristics are about as good as that of randomly-built binary
search trees - namely (O log n). So the choice of which to select search trees - namely ($\mathcal{O}(\log n)$). So the choice of which to select
depends very much on memory available, insert/read characteristics, depends very much on memory available, insert/read characteristics,
etc. So delegating the choice to a single point in your code is a very etc. So delegating the choice to a single point in your code is a very
good idea. Unfortunately, in Erlang that's so easy to do at the moment. good idea. Unfortunately, in Erlang that's so easy to do at the moment.