|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:||Stephan Eggermont <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||7 Jan 2003 23:30:45 -0500|
|Organization:||Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands|
|References:||02-11-060 02-12-056 02-12-092 02-12-107 02-12-127|
|Posted-Date:||07 Jan 2003 23:30:45 EST|
Joachim Durchholz <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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?
They only have roughly the same execution cost for 1-bit numbers.
For 32-bit or 128-bit (OIDs) the difference is large.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.