Arrays: new and old keys, i
ambassador at fourthworld.com
Sun Sep 14 05:31:23 CDT 2008
Mark Smith wrote:
> I believe that it's in the nature of hash tables (which is what Rev's
> arrays are, I think) that they do not preserve the order of keys.
> If so, then the engine would have to maintain an ordered index
> separately. This would likely affect performance, so perhaps we
> wouldn't always want it...
For accessing specific elements from large collections, arrays
outperform any lineoffset in lists or any other method I can think of by
several orders of magnitude.*
Read, "It's a good hash mechanism". :)
When I need ordinal sequential access, I use ordinal keys. Am I some
sort of freak?
* The split and combine commands are enormously costly, however, so the
value of the blinding speed of the array hash is best exploited with
data sets that live natively in arrays, rather than in delimited lists
converted to arrays only temporarily.
Managing Editor, revJournal
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
More information about the use-livecode