> On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 11:32:19AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > With a local hash table, I don't think it's necessary to introduce new
> > code for managing
> > a DSA based list of tranche names as is done in v3. We can go back to
> > storing the shared
> > trance names in dshash.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> My first thought is that a per-backend hash table seems too
> expensive/complicated for this. Couldn't it just be an array like we have
> now?
We can, but I was considering simplicity of implementation, and using a
local hash table is slightly simpler.
That said, since we're dealing with an append-only data structure, a hash
table is probably more than we need. All we need is index-based lookup,
so I’ll go with the local array to mirror the shared ( dsa ) array.
--
Sami
