<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Behind the scenes of hash table performance in ruby 2.4	</title>
	<atom:link href="/behind-scenes-hash-table-performance-ruby-2-4/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/behind-scenes-hash-table-performance-ruby-2-4/</link>
	<description>Red Panthers - Experts in Ruby on Rails, System Design and Vue.js</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:01:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.7</generator>
			<item>
				<title>
				By: Aboobacker Mk				</title>
				<link>/behind-scenes-hash-table-performance-ruby-2-4/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aboobacker Mk]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://redpanthers.co/?p=922#comment-37</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[Thanks for your inputs , 3 times performance improvement for accessing keys and values are from my laptop , it can vary with the processor you have .  My point was to show that some hash operations became upto 3 times time faster , not all operations became 3 times faster . I will update the post with other benchmarks to avoid confusions .]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your inputs , 3 times performance improvement for accessing keys and values are from my laptop , it can vary with the processor you have .  My point was to show that some hash operations became upto 3 times time faster , not all operations became 3 times faster . I will update the post with other benchmarks to avoid confusions .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
						</item>
						<item>
				<title>
				By: wrzasa				</title>
				<link>/behind-scenes-hash-table-performance-ruby-2-4/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[wrzasa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 07:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://redpanthers.co/?p=922#comment-36</guid>
					<description><![CDATA[The article proves that the benchmark presented at the beginning is misleading and suggests invalid conclusions. Since in 2.4 Hash stores list of its entries in sequential array, so the `hash.values` operation is immediate -- just need to copy the array. So there is significant performance gain comparing to 2.3, but it has nothing to do with performance of usual hash operations: insert, find, delete. Results of the presented benchmark cannot be used to predict performance gain of other hash operations.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article proves that the benchmark presented at the beginning is misleading and suggests invalid conclusions. Since in 2.4 Hash stores list of its entries in sequential array, so the `hash.values` operation is immediate &#8212; just need to copy the array. So there is significant performance gain comparing to 2.3, but it has nothing to do with performance of usual hash operations: insert, find, delete. Results of the presented benchmark cannot be used to predict performance gain of other hash operations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
						</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
