On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de> wrote: > Am 02.01.2012 01:37, schrieb Jim Jewett: >> Well, there is nothing wrong with switching to a different hash function after N >> collisions, rather than "in the first place". The perturbation >> effectively does by >> shoving the high-order bits through the part of the hash that survives the mask. > Except that it won't work or slow down every lookup of missing keys? > It's absolutely crucial that the lookup time is kept as fast as possible. It will only slow down missing keys that themselves hit more than N collisions. Or were you assuming that I meant to switch the whole table, rather than just that one key? I agree that wouldn't work. > You can't just change the hash algorithm in the middle of the work > without a speed impact on lookups. Right -- but there is nothing wrong with modifying the lookdict (and insert_clean) functions to do something different after the Nth collision than they did after the N-1th. -jJ
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