Re: [boost] [ boost ] [ Trie ]

Are there any already made outlined plans? Because I need to use a specialized radix tree (or caching trie) for a very highly performance critical task and I was wondering if I could somehow get my code into boost so that the code can be reused. The Trie type itself could be an NVI interface, and the specializations mere exchangable templates. What do you think? On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:21 AM, endight . wrote:

Is there place for one more contributor (for me) ? Should i someshow prove my skills?

2015-03-05 10:15 GMT+03:00 Antony Polukhin :

...

2015-03-05 2:55 GMT+03:00 Cosmin Boaca :

...

Hello,

I have modified the directory strucure. I think it's ok right now.

...

Another significant and hard task: trie_node structure looks too heavy: there are too many member variables. Try to simplify trie_node and value_list_node structures. Think of a possible optimizations of the trie_node structure for trie_set|trie_map|trie_multiset|trie_multimap. For example all the sets do not require values, so pointers to value list nodes can be removed from trie_set in that case.

I have thought of this task too. I will share with you some ideas in order to get some feedback about them.

1. Value = void specialization for trie_node which would remove pointers to value_list_head/tail, self_value_count.

+1

...

2. Another specialization or something like this would be ok for trie_map also. The map_node should only contain a member value_type value. value_list_head/tail, self_value_count should be removed in this case to but I don't know how to specialize the template (for which key, value) type.

+1

How about adding aditional template parameter to map node. Something like

template class map_node;

...

3. Considering 2, trie_multiset could be easily implemented in terms of trie_map, maybe using private inheritance. The int would keep track of the frequency of the key prefix.

+1

...

4. value_count could be completely removed but this would greatly reduce the performance of count_prefix function. In my opinion this shouldn't be removed.

This is discussable. Let's solve this some time later.

...

I don't know too much about pred_node, next_node, and the child_iter_of_parrent. I need to take some more time to look at those things to see if any of them could be removed. I see that pred_node and next_node are used in trie_iterator and child_iter_of_parrent is used to maintain the values of pred_node and next_node. However, I don't know which would be the tradeofs of the removal for each of them.

Let's eat an elephant part by part. There's more than enough tasks right now, even without *_node and child_iter_of_parrent.

...

Looking forward to your feedback about the ideas above.

Good progress! Trie library becoming better and better.

-- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost