[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Re: [PATCH 2.8.5-dev14] *Really* large tables
From: |
Ilya Zakharevich |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Re: [PATCH 2.8.5-dev14] *Really* large tables |
Date: |
Mon, 12 May 2003 13:23:59 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
Leonid Pauzner wrote:
>/* Experiments show that 2 is better than 1.5 is better than 1.25 (all by
> a small margin only)??? */
>#define CELLS_GROWBY_FACTOR 2
Actually, this may be an artefact of the particular size of the table
(500K rows and 2 cells per row). One needs to recheck with some other
sizes; there is no reason why 1.25 should not be much better in some
cases.
IMHO, cell growby strategy should be as follows:
the first row (maybe first and second) - cells_growby 16, init with 0;
other rows - cells_growby 1, init with the previous row length.
There is no dependence between number of cells in a row and that of
the previous row.
Anyway, since cells are pooled, this is not relevant. The macros you
quote are about pool allocation strategy, not cells-per-row array.
Having in mind that number of cells in a row is not large, and limited by
the screen width, the number of reallocs will be very small. And we will not
allocate memory for 16 cells in a row if we need only a couple...
Number of cells in a row has nothing to do with the screen width. It
is determined by HTML (row != line; rows retain the structure of HTML
table; same for cells, which may be multiline).
Hope this helps,
Ilya
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden