Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I’m kind of tempted to re-run this test using LISTS, then SETS, then SORTED SETS just to see how they all compare from a storage point of view.

Yes please, that would be much appreciated.



I figured it'd be useful to do... just need to block off a bit of time. Perhaps in the next 24 hours if I'm lucky.


I've noticed that sorted sets have noticeably more overhead than the other types.


If that's true, I wonder why. Maybe is they are trying to get O(1) access? Storing it the 'default' way would be O(log n) which isn't bad, but might still be unacceptable.


Ah, I found my answer. Sets are stored in both a skip list and a hash table. So the overhead is indeed high.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: