Re: HPACK benchmark test for substitution indexing vs incremental indexing only from Fred Akalin on 2013-09-24 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:53:10 -0700
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CANUYc_TSR42nHqTijuvxPD5wSazpFLzrd9CiMC9e45o32S-96g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:51 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm also not a fan of the name index reference option given that it
> requires us to search the table for a suitable name index. I'd rather
> take the somewhat less efficient on-the-wire encoding than scan the
> table for name indexes.
>

What "search"/"scan" is involved? If it's an index, then it's an index
lookup, which is pretty efficient for a deque, which is what the header
table should be implemented as.

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 17:53:37 UTC