On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Kumar <srikumarks@gmail.com> wrote: > While space usage is one factor, the main factor impacting performance is, > I think, the time cost of having around such "finished" but connected > nodes. As long as "finished" node subchains - i.e. those that include > source nodes and consist only of "finished" nodes - contribute zero compute > cost irrespective of space reclamation, cases like granular synthesis would > be viable. If you limit the space, then you automatically limit the number of nodes that are "kept around". One can assume an implementation won't spend time processing nodes that aren't taking up space. Rob -- Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir — whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28]
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 10:41:54 UTC