You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Weak heaps have more favorable time complexities than binary heaps and do fewer comparisons than them.
I modified my own copy of this crate to be able to use a weak heap as a backend instead of a binary heap, and benchmarking seems to show that they do live up to the theory. However, weak heaps have more overhead than binary heaps, so binary heaps will still be preferred in some applications.
Would this be an addition to this crate you would be willing to accept, and if so, how should I integrate it with the rest of the crate?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Do note, however, that these changes were made largely for exploration purposes, and IMO are not suited for merging yet. We can probably think of a better API design than what I threw together...
Weak heaps have more favorable time complexities than binary heaps and do fewer comparisons than them.
I modified my own copy of this crate to be able to use a weak heap as a backend instead of a binary heap, and benchmarking seems to show that they do live up to the theory. However, weak heaps have more overhead than binary heaps, so binary heaps will still be preferred in some applications.
Would this be an addition to this crate you would be willing to accept, and if so, how should I integrate it with the rest of the crate?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: