|There's more than one way to do things|
Also not to be excluded entirely is ... uhh ... an array of integers that is searched sequentially each time.
That is a surprise winner for my 'Worst Advice of the Month (January, 2013)' prize.
... set up a few short test-runs ...
I'd suggest you take your own advice before doling it out to others.
NB: The following uses 1/10 the number of values and 1/10 the number of lookups than the tests above for arrays, hashes and bit vectors, because it takes so long to complete.:
Using that as the basis for estimation, the total size will be 3.2MB -- 12 times that required by the bitvector solution.
And the lookups that took hashes 1 second; arrays 2/5ths of a second and bitvectors 1/3rd of a second; would take: 25 days!
It is really hard to see any circumstance when this would be a viable solution.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In reply to Re^2: Array vs. Hash for sparsely integer-indexed data