You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The tree currently stores the count of elements under each node directly in the nodes themselves. It would probably lead to faster offset-based navigation if these counts were moved to an array/buffer in the parent node instead.
We need to decide what to do with the root node's count.
An implementation of this would need to prove that it's an overall improvement, so it should come with benchmarking data — see issue #5.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The tree currently stores the count of elements under each node directly in the nodes themselves. It would probably lead to faster offset-based navigation if these counts were moved to an array/buffer in the parent node instead.
We need to decide what to do with the root node's count.
An implementation of this would need to prove that it's an overall improvement, so it should come with benchmarking data — see issue #5.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: