"O(1) Perl opcodes vs. splice" doesn't really compare to "O(log(N)) Perl opcodes vs. splice", especially when the constant multiplier for the O(1) is quite small.
Splice might be efficient enough that the point where splice's O(N) nature finally takes over the small constant is a fairly large N.
But I consider trying to optimize the simple O(1) linked list to be micro optimization and I don't plan to spend time futzing with benchmarks to see if an O(N) solution is a bit faster for the cache sizes I predict (perhaps quite inaccurately, in the long run).
- tye
I misunderstood the question at first and wrote: Neither my linked list nor the one it replaced used splice. *shrug* They were rather different from each other.
In reply to Re^3: Designing a cache data structure (splice)
by tye
in thread Designing a cache data structure
by spurperl
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |