2024/11/07

Newest at the top

2024-11-07 15:39:29 +0100CoolMa7(~CoolMa7@128.90.170.13) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2024-11-07 15:38:13 +0100housemate(~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2024-11-07 15:36:09 +0100CoolMa7_(~CoolMa7@128.90.145.4) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2024-11-07 15:34:58 +0100CoolMa7(~CoolMa7@128.90.170.13) CoolMa7
2024-11-07 15:33:59 +0100CoolMa7(~CoolMa7@95.91.137.87) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2024-11-07 15:31:06 +0100CoolMa7_(~CoolMa7@128.90.145.4) CoolMa7
2024-11-07 15:30:11 +0100kuribas(~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) (Remote host closed the connection)
2024-11-07 15:28:56 +0100CoolMa7(~CoolMa7@95.91.137.87) CoolMa7
2024-11-07 15:22:44 +0100Square(~Square4@user/square) Square
2024-11-07 15:21:06 +0100longlongdouble(~longlongd@2405:201:5c16:135:1989:242:cab1:419a)
2024-11-07 15:19:54 +0100longlongdouble(~longlongd@2405:201:5c16:135:1989:242:cab1:419a) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2024-11-07 15:16:34 +0100housemate(~housemate@146.70.66.228) housemate
2024-11-07 15:14:24 +0100blover(~blover@2804:7f0:6780:f864:2d9e:2c7d:cab0:69d2) blover
2024-11-07 15:12:53 +0100housemate(~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2024-11-07 15:09:19 +0100sam113101(~sam@modemcable220.199-203-24.mc.videotron.ca) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2024-11-07 15:07:56 +0100 <[exa]> whew cool, they actually did cuckoo hashing
2024-11-07 15:07:28 +0100 <geekosaur> wasn't even in `containers`, that didn't exist yet
2024-11-07 15:07:17 +0100 <geekosaur> https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/6.6.1/docs/html/libraries/base/Data-HashTable.html
2024-11-07 15:06:33 +0100housemate(~housemate@146.70.66.228) housemate
2024-11-07 15:06:24 +0100notzmv(~daniel@user/notzmv) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2024-11-07 15:05:59 +0100 <geekosaur> (this was long before `unordered-containers`)
2024-11-07 15:05:22 +0100 <geekosaur> (historical note: `containers` used to include an `IO`-based hash table. it was removed because its performance was pretty bad. but someone resuscitated it and mostly fixed the performance issues, and now it's in the `hashtables` package IIRC)
2024-11-07 15:02:56 +0100 <[exa]> usually doing most operations in O(log n).
2024-11-07 15:02:54 +0100 <[exa]> Inst: anyway re mutability, each hashtable change requires changing a single element in a (potentially big) array. Normally with computers that's very efficient so people can reach the "amortized hashy O(1)" aka O(log/loglog). In haskell it's absolutely not easy unless you either unsafePerformIO or force the user to pull ST or IO through each operation. So people kinda fall back to trees which are
2024-11-07 15:02:34 +0100tromp(~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl)
2024-11-07 14:57:36 +0100CoolMa7(~CoolMa7@ip5f5b8957.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
2024-11-07 14:55:31 +0100 <[exa]> +- the usual consideration of "sometimes it just rehashes in O(n)"
2024-11-07 14:53:21 +0100 <[exa]> for all kinds of mutable hashmaps you usually end up at something like O(log n/loglog n) with an uncanny constant factor and absolutely no chance to get any benefit from the usual computers' caching layers
2024-11-07 14:53:17 +0100longlongdouble(~longlongd@2405:201:5c16:135:1989:242:cab1:419a)
2024-11-07 14:52:49 +0100longlongdouble(~longlongd@117.225.100.25) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2024-11-07 14:51:34 +0100 <[exa]> at which point everyone should just use an array and integer index
2024-11-07 14:51:26 +0100 <[exa]> yes it only holds for a completely immutable container prepared with a perfect hash
2024-11-07 14:51:05 +0100housemate(~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2024-11-07 14:50:46 +0100 <kuribas> It's only if the number of buckets is large enough?
2024-11-07 14:50:24 +0100 <kuribas> Isn't the O(1) for a hashtable also a lie?
2024-11-07 14:49:41 +0100weary-traveler(~user@user/user363627) user363627
2024-11-07 14:48:40 +0100ocra8(ocra8@user/ocra8) (Quit: WeeChat 4.3.4)
2024-11-07 14:48:02 +0100 <[exa]> but don't, the O(1) for hashmaps is a lie
2024-11-07 14:47:30 +0100 <[exa]> tbh there are efficient hashy sets and maps even in haskell in https://hackage.haskell.org/package/unordered-containers
2024-11-07 14:45:12 +0100 <kuribas> binary trees, which is are usually used in pure datatypes, have log n operations.
2024-11-07 14:43:38 +0100 <kuribas> hashtables use mutation to insert elements.
2024-11-07 14:43:17 +0100 <Inst> how do you use mutability to get O(1) access?
2024-11-07 14:42:53 +0100 <kuribas> most languages depend on mutability to get O(1). Which is itself a lie, since memory access in a CPU is not O(1).
2024-11-07 14:42:20 +0100 <kuribas> Inst: in any case, it's what you get with immutable structures.
2024-11-07 14:42:07 +0100 <kuribas> Inst: it mostly depends on constant factors.
2024-11-07 14:42:02 +0100sudden(~cat@user/sudden) sudden
2024-11-07 14:41:58 +0100 <kuribas> Inst: O(ln n) is not much different from O(1).
2024-11-07 14:41:43 +0100 <Inst> afaik in other languages you can O(1) access objects
2024-11-07 14:41:27 +0100 <Inst> tbh what's the deal with O(ln n) for Haskell sets and maps?
2024-11-07 14:39:13 +0100weary-traveler(~user@user/user363627) (Remote host closed the connection)