Message203019
| Author | ncoghlan |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, christian.heimes, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date | 2013-11-16.10:24:39 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1384597479.7.0.380566361319.issue19183@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Thanks - are those numbers with the current feature branch, and hence no small string optimization? To be completely clear, I'm happy to accept a performance penalty to fix the hash algorithm. I'd just like to know exactly how big a penalty I'm accepting, and whether taking advantage of the small string optimization makes it measurably smaller. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-11-16 10:24:39 | ncoghlan | set | recipients: + ncoghlan, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, Arfrever, neologix, python-dev, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2013-11-16 10:24:39 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1384597479.7.0.380566361319.issue19183@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-11-16 10:24:39 | ncoghlan | link | issue19183 messages |
| 2013-11-16 10:24:39 | ncoghlan | create | |