Hi Christian, I must diasgree with you for at least 3 reasons. - ROOT compression will do better than your 1 byte data type. - Very often , placing 1 Byte element in a class creates a misalignement problem and you run the risk to lose more space than you think to gain and also to lose time due to the misalignement - We cannot support all possible cases in the collection classes: a TObjArray with a wordcount of 1,2,4,8 bytes. A TClonesArray is very efficient (storage wise and I/O wise), in particular when you have many tiny objects. Rene Brun Christian Holm Christensen wrote: > > Hi Rene, > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:26:03 +0100 (MET) > Rene Brun <Rene.Brun@cern.ch> wrote > concerning "Re: [ROOT] reduction": > > Hi Christian, > > > > What Karl is doing is perfectly correct and a very efficient solution. > > As indicated in a previous mail, I have fixed a problem in the > > TBranchElement constructor where an unnecessary buffer was created > > for the counter branch of the TClonesArray. With this fix, the > > average size of the counter should be below one byte in average. > > I am just waiting the confirmation from Karl. > > I know it's perfectly alright. It's just that if you only need to > store numbers from 0-255 in a member, why not use the 1 byte Byte_t > type rather than the 2 Byte_t UShort_t type? That'll save you 1 byte > of data for each instance of the class stored on the tree. > > Yours, > > Christian Holm Christensen ------------------------------------------- > Address: Sankt Hansgade 23, 1. th. Phone: (+45) 35 35 96 91 > DK-2200 Copenhagen N Cell: (+45) 28 82 16 23 > Denmark Office: (+45) 353 25 305 > Email: cholm@nbi.dk Web: www.nbi.dk/~cholm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 04 2003 - 23:50:38 MET