Re: GETF Speedup?
"Bradford Miller (as bradford dot w dot miller at gmail dot com)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I never said there was. I’m just disappointed (?) that many such LispM ideas haven’t been preserved in current platforms. Sent from an iPad I found on the couch > On Oct 13, 2025, at 4:05 PM, Tim Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There is nothing to prevent the objects that CL calls hash tables from using a strategy like that. > >>> On 13 Oct 2025, at 19:15, Bradford Miller (as bradford dot w dot miller at gmail dot com) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> This discussion reminds me of the Symbolics “Table Management Facility” (q.v. https://www.chai.uni-hamburg.de/~moeller/symbolics-info/documentation/Symbolics-Common-Lisp-Language-Concepts.pdf ). >> >> The basic idea was you used the common lisp hash table interface in your code, and the machine would organize it for efficiency based on size (you could predeclare a size so you didn’t pay a runtime penalty for reorganization). >> >>>> On Oct 13, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Yuri Davidovsky (as work at disclosure dot ie) <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Oct 2025, at 17:28, David McClain <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> And now the count is down to 10 associations!! >>> >>> Pretty much what Bradshaw’s tests showed. 10 key/value pairs should still be sufficient for small time dictionary storage, especially if you place frequently used items at the top of the list. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html >>