add rob pike's comments on data structure complexity
This commit is contained in:
parent
8cf78568e5
commit
7a669446dc
@ -1297,6 +1297,16 @@ faster.
|
|||||||
>
|
>
|
||||||
> -- <cite>Douglas W. Jones, University of Iowa</cite>
|
> -- <cite>Douglas W. Jones, University of Iowa</cite>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
and
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Rule 3. Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small, and n is usually small.
|
||||||
|
> Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that n is frequently going
|
||||||
|
> to be big, don't get fancy.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Rule 4. Fancy algorithms are buggier than simple ones, and they're much
|
||||||
|
> harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures.
|
||||||
|
> -- <cite>"Notes on C Programming" (Rob Pike, 1989)</cite>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The added complexity has to be enough that the payoff is actually worth it.
|
The added complexity has to be enough that the payoff is actually worth it.
|
||||||
Another example is cache eviction algorithms. Different algorithms can have
|
Another example is cache eviction algorithms. Different algorithms can have
|
||||||
much higher complexity for only a small improvement in hit ratio. Of course,
|
much higher complexity for only a small improvement in hit ratio. Of course,
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user