Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:54:28 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Most wanted Message-ID: <20040307214622.Y68396@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040307194055.08e83008@imap.sfu.ca> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0403011839470.3269-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <20040306013914.D38020@haldjas.folklore.ee> <20040306141742.4f41ba27.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <20040306155513.6a75e264.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <20040307210125.Y68396@haldjas.folklore.ee> <6.0.1.1.1.20040307194055.08e83008@imap.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Colin Percival wrote: > At 19:31 07/03/2004, Narvi wrote: > >The *traditional* hash table is one that uses linear probing, that is, it > >converts a list to a nice cache friendly array and provides you with a > >hint where you should start looking. > > Does anyone actually do that any more? When I absolutely need a hash It is still around. It plays *exteremely* nicely with cache, for example. Sure, it takes some extra care to make sure you don't run into nastiness, but it can give you a very fast and efficent hash. > table, I normally use double hashing and gradual rehashing. But maybe > that's just a personal quirk. > Have you looked at cuckoo hashing? > Colin Percival > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040307214622.Y68396>