Pattern matching vs. ETS lookups

[Vance Shipley]

Curiosity got the better of me so I ran some benchmarks.

The attached runs four different versions a gen_server.
The first test is with a full 65K of {module, function}
tuples of generated atoms.  Each test is a loop of 1000
gen_server:call.

                        CNT       ACC         OWN
list                   14605, 2874.423, 11382.772
gb_trees               14632,  163.546,   578.699
ets                    14631,  148.579,   523.257
tuple of tuples        14632,  146.690,   512.442


This is the output of fprof:analyse.  Obviously the 
list version is not effecient.  The others seem 
equivalent.

With only 3000 random entries:

list                   14647,  221.448,   814.819
gb_trees               14648,  154.442,   551.877
ets                    14648,  155.908,   558.271


The list implentation isn't so bad now.  There 
doesn't seem to be much difference in the others.
I'm now satisfied that my gb_trees method is just
as effecient as an ets table.

	-Vance