[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kopete-devel
Subject:    [Kopete-devel] Re: Logging
From:       Richard Smith <kde () metafoo ! co ! uk>
Date:       2003-04-23 15:41:50
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Tuesday 22 April 2003 5:30 pm, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 April 2003 11:58 am, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > > Log files are going to be stored on a metacontact ID basis from now on
> > > for many reasons. It is much easier to select a MC log file by contact
> > > ID than it is to merge contact logs into a MC history, because of
> > > timestamps.
> >
> > what is wrong with timestamp?
> > if we use an numerical format, we can sort it.
>
> Why incurr this overhead??
>
> Option 1: Store seperate files for each contact, merge them for MC history.
>
> 		UI has to sort all entries, O( n long n ) best case performance

Or, when implemented correctly, O(nl) worst case performance, where n is the 
number of messages, and l is the number of lists. Merging sorted lists and 
sorting lists aren't the same problem. And l is always going to be small...

> Option 2: Store one merged log file, only load entries for contact we want
> 		if loading single contact history.
>
> 		O( n ) worst case performance
>
> It is quite obvious storing the files merged is the better solution.

Based on asymptotic runtime analysis alone, I don't think that's true. OTOH, I 
can't think of any reason (apart from having misconfigured my metacontacts) 
that I'd care which way this was done.

-- 
My old signature
Was dull and is now replaced
By this, a haiku
[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
Kopete-devel mailing list
Kopete-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]