From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 7 10:47:06 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9904116A4CE for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:47:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3DC43D1D for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:47:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i27IkWUA069432; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:46:32 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost)i27IkWdi069429; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:46:32 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:46:32 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Chris Pressey In-Reply-To: <20040306155513.6a75e264.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> Message-ID: <20040307204413.W68396@haldjas.folklore.ee> References: <20040306005744.T38020@haldjas.folklore.ee> <20040306013914.D38020@haldjas.folklore.ee> <6.0.1.1.1.20040306214526.08c5ed70@imap.sfu.ca> <20040306141742.4f41ba27.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <20040306155513.6a75e264.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on haldjas.folklore.ee cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Most wanted X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:47:06 -0000 On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Chris Pressey wrote: > > And, yeah. A hash table is really nothing by itself. It's just a way > of taking a long list (or other structure) and splitting it up into N > smaller structures. If your lists are never that long in the first > place, there's no point. > URKH! No it doesn't. Or rather, it should - there are almost no good reasons to use a naive chaining hash table. > > -Chris >