|
|
|
|
|
|
by eliben
405 days ago
|
|
|
Updated the result to 80ns - thanks for flagging this. This grows with the size of the data (because more cache misses), and running the benchmark on the full billion takes a while. [That said, on a hot production bloom filter, much can be loaded into caches anyway so it's not an entirely un-realistic scenario that some of these are cache hits] |
|
|