|
Size: 472
Comment:
|
Size: 991
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 10: | Line 10: |
| * For tables less than 50 elements or so, binary search will give more performance than hash tables * Collision and how to handle collisions is an important factor in designing around hash tables * There are schemes that generate a perfect hash function, given a set of elements * While there is no clear size, from my experience, 16 bit hashes that give 65536 elements is a good start * You can have global and local hash tables ie smaller hash tables than a big hash tables that contains all the elements |
What is it ? Mechanics and mechanisms
Usage Patterns
Usage sample
Internals
Data Structure
Major Operations
Experience – what worked and more importantly what didn’t work & gotchas
- For tables less than 50 elements or so, binary search will give more performance than hash tables
- Collision and how to handle collisions is an important factor in designing around hash tables
- There are schemes that generate a perfect hash function, given a set of elements
- While there is no clear size, from my experience, 16 bit hashes that give 65536 elements is a good start
- You can have global and local hash tables ie smaller hash tables than a big hash tables that contains all the elements
Discussions & Notes
<KS 8 Feb, 07> I have started the template and am slowly filling in the details. Please contribute as you see fit. Cheers </KS>
- ["CategoryFAQ"]