Consider not using SmallVec #4
Assignees
Labels
enhancement
New feature or request
Comments
|
I think that's a good point. However, I'd advocate for the generic solution. I have two slightly different use-cases. For both of them, the maximum size is not known at compile time, but in one case the maximum size is known at runtime, when initialize my data structure. In the case where I know the maximum size, and I know that it is smaller than a certain multiple of machine words, I'd use a Users that are only interested in a "larger amount of bits" could use an implementation based on |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Because SmallVec has the capability to store elements inline for small lengths it has to make additional checks on whether an allocation or inline storage is being used. This introduces some overhead as evidenced in benchmarks.
In the use cases where I want to reach for a bitvec crate I typically expect to need to represent larger amount of bits than will fit inline in a
SmallVec. So the allocation savings may not be significant enough to be worth this additional overhead.I think it would be useful to consider replacing
SmallVecwith a plainVecor makingBitVecSimdgeneric over the backing storage.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: