Hi Rene,
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:48:44 +0000
Rene Brun <Rene.Brun@cern.ch> wrote
concerning "Re: [ROOT] reduction":
> Hi Christian,
>
> I must diasgree with you for at least 3 reasons.
> - ROOT compression will do better than your 1 byte data type.
Hmm. Does ROOT not compress Byte_t members? Anyway, that is >50%
reduction; impressive. However, in memory, you still loose 1 byte per
object, which isn't a problem ofcourse :-)
> - 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
Whoops, forgot that issue. But isn't that helped by the mechanism
where you put all members of one type in one continues array (or
something like that anyway).
> - We cannot support all possible cases in the collection classes:
> a TObjArray with a wordcount of 1,2,4,8 bytes.
Well, I didn't intend the collection counter to be of various sizes.
It was rather the objects that you put into the collection that could
use Byte_t instead of UShort_t.
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