From d3ec1a3af2f9a2265336ba376f3ee7b75bb6e534 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~willu/" Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:01:12 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment on part of Joey's comment --- doc/todo/should_optimise_pagespecs.mdwn | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/todo/should_optimise_pagespecs.mdwn b/doc/todo/should_optimise_pagespecs.mdwn index 1919e3584..9d2611249 100644 --- a/doc/todo/should_optimise_pagespecs.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/should_optimise_pagespecs.mdwn @@ -120,6 +120,14 @@ separate item, the list can get rather long, and that single add_depends loop has suddenly become O(N^2) to the number of pages, which is something to avoid.. +> I was also thinking about this (I've been playing with some stuff based on the +> `remove-pagespec-merge` branch). A hash, by itself, is not optimal because +> the dependency list holds two things: page names and page specs. The hash would +> work well for the page names, but you'll still need to iterate through the page specs. +> I was thinking of keeping a list and a hash. You use the list for pagespecs +> and the hash for individual page names. To make this work you need to adjust the +> API so it knows which you're adding. -- [[Will]] + Also, since a lot of places are calling add_depends in a loop, it probably makes sense to just make it accept a list of dependencies to add. It'll be marginally faster, probably, and should allow for better optimisation -- 2.26.2