Right. When you ask "how could we support deletion of nodes", am I right to assu... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		ztorkelson on May 29, 2018 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: A new fast hash table in response to Google’s new ... Right. When you ask "how could we support deletion of nodes", am I right to assume you mean "how could we reclaim memory of deleted nodes"? Conventionally, a free list would be used, though admittedly that sacrifices locality which was one of the original motivating factors. To the extent that deletion is a significant component of the workload, then yeah, this doesn't help.

MaxBarraclough on May 30, 2018 [–]

Yes, exactly. It would of course be trivial to unlink a node without reclaiming it, but then you're leaking.

Radix trees never rotate, right? Can that be leveraged to help with locality?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact