You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
flurry has been a very interesting concurrent hash table experiment and has driven a lot of innovation in that space. However, at this point, flurry suffers from performance as well as memory usage issues under load. These are likely artifacts of the underlying implementation being geared for a garbage collected language and difficult to solve without a design overhaul. dashmap and papaya provide better performance and memory usage across the board. flurry is still a very popular crate, does it make sense to bring attention to some of these issues in the README?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, I think it does! I don't feel strongly that flurry must be an "equal competitor" in the space, so would happily take a PR that adds a "better alternatives" section to the readme and crate docs.
flurry has been a very interesting concurrent hash table experiment and has driven a lot of innovation in that space. However, at this point, flurry suffers from performance as well as memory usage issues under load. These are likely artifacts of the underlying implementation being geared for a garbage collected language and difficult to solve without a design overhaul. dashmap and papaya provide better performance and memory usage across the board. flurry is still a very popular crate, does it make sense to bring attention to some of these issues in the README?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: