|Masters course with compiler specialization firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeremy Wright) (2002-11-12)|
|Re: Masters course with compiler specialization Trevor.Jenkins@suneidesis.com (2002-12-11)|
|Re: Masters course with compiler specialization email@example.com (2002-12-19)|
|Size of hash tables was Re: Masters course with compiler specializat Trevor.Jenkins@suneidesis.com (2002-12-22)|
|Re: Size of hash tables was Re: Masters course ... firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-12-30)|
|Re: Size of hash tables was Re: Masters course ... email@example.com (Matthias Neeracher) (2003-01-04)|
|Re: Size of hash tables was Re: Masters course ... firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-01-04)|
|Re: Size of hash tables was Re: Masters course ... email@example.com (Stephan Eggermont) (2003-01-07)|
|From:||Joachim Durchholz <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||30 Dec 2002 23:58:40 -0500|
|References:||02-11-060 02-12-056 02-12-092 02-12-107|
|Posted-Date:||30 Dec 2002 23:58:40 EST|
Trevor Jenkins wrote:
> Since the publication of Maurer's paper "An improved hash code for
> scatter storage" in the Comm of the ACM (vol 11, Jan 1968, pp 35--38)
> it is taken as gospel that hash tables only work if the size is a
> prime number.
Not "only work". Just "distribute their keys in a more random fashion,
assuming you don't have a priori knowledge about key distribution". I
don't see how this argument has been invalidated. Particularly on
modern hardware, where division and bit masking have roughly the same
execution cost. Could anybody clarify?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.