Tim Peters wrote:
> Behind the scenes, Damien Morton has been playing with radically different
> designs for "small" dicts. This reminded me that, in previous lives, I
> always used chaining ("linked lists") for collision resolution in hash
> tables. I don't have time to pursue this now, but it would make a nice
> experiment for someone who wants to try a non-trivial but still-simple and
> interesting project. It may even pay off, but that shouldn't be a
> motivation <wink>.
>
When I took data structures I was taught that chaining was actually the
easiest way to do hash tables and they still had good performance
compared to open addressing. Because of this taught bias I always
wondered why Python used open addressing; can someone tell me?
I am interested in seeing how this would pan out, but I am unfortunately
going to be busy for the next three days (if anyone is going to be at E3
Thursday or Friday for some odd reason let me know since I will be
there). If someone takes this up please let me know; I am interested in
helping if I can. Perhaps this should be a sandbox thing?
-Brett
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4