Message from JavaScript discussions

May 2017

— A Judy tree is faster/more memory efficient than other trees, like the one you showed


"From a memory consumption (size) point of view, a Judy tree shares (does not duplicate) common digits of a key in a tree. This form of key compression is a natural outcome from using a digital tree. This would be very awkward to do in trees balanced by population and, as far as I know, has never been done. Each pointer traversed in a Judy tree points to ever smaller sub-expanses, while decoding another 8 bits of the key. (In a pure digital tree, the keys are not stored in the tree, they are inferred by position.)"

— I found an HP internal document about them, it is 81 pages

— Http://

— "Judy IV turned out to be enormous and time-consuming... Obtaining a ~2x improvement in speed and space required ~5x lines of code and ~10x complexity, but we only lost 3-4 engineers to malnutrition during the implementation phase."

Message permanent page

— Hahaha

— Insane

— 10 insertions takes 0.6ms

— Lel

— I'm pretty accurately 10 times slower than native

— Set runtime: 280.370ms
myset runtime: 3524.986ms
set runtime: 275.362ms
myset runtime: 2990.192ms
set runtime: 305.948ms
myset runtime: 3395.202ms
set runtime: 313.230ms
myset runtime: 3073.291ms
set runtime: 278.051ms
myset runtime: 3688.234ms

Message permanent page

— Delete is messy