Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 01:15:28PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> > Hmm, I would have thought prio_queue had less memory overhead. You're >> > spending one pointer per entry in a packed array, versus list nodes. But >> > it's true that it doesn't shrink as items are removed (though that is >> > something we _could_ implement). >> >> If we just count the net data then a commit_list item has two pointers >> and a prio_queue_entry has a pointer and an ID for stability. That's a >> tie. ALLOC_GROW overallocates by ca. 50%, so that's 25% more on >> average for the prio_queue. No idea what overhead malloc() needs per >> allocation, but I guess it's enough to tilt the scale back against >> commit_lists. > > Oh right, I totally forgot about the extra counter. Don't feel bad. I forgot about it, too, when I gave my "is it stable?" comment to René's patch. ;-)
