Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004)
- From: Javier Guerra Giraldez <javier@...>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:52:52 -0500
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
<roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> The drawbacks would be for programs that use very long keys
> (longer than 32 bytes or some other limit) or that regularly
> compare such long strings between them for equality or that
> create multiple copies of such long strings. I may be wrong,
> but I think neither of these cases are common.
my gut feeling is that you're right for strings longer than 1k or so;
but strings less than 80 doesn't seem unreasonable to compare and use
as key.
does 32 has any nice advantage as a limit? or would 64 work as well?
--
Javier
- References:
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Vladimir Protasov
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Leo Razoumov
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Vladimir Protasov
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Miles Bader
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Ashwin Hirschi
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Miles Bader
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), David Kolf
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Miles Bader
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Alexander Gladysh
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Roberto Ierusalimschy
- Re: Hash Table Collisions (n.runs-SA-2011.004), Roberto Ierusalimschy