Re: glib hash memory footprint

 --- "Alan M. Evans" <ame1 extratech com> wrote: 
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 12:05, Sander Vesik wrote:
> I suppose that this is just my personal bias, but I don't think that
> closed hashing is a good general purpose solution, given the requirement
> to allocate a table larger than your data. (In fact, the table should be
> at least twice the size of the data, or performance with linear probing
> really takes a hit.) I'm certainly not saying that a closed hash table
> is never good, but for the general case, I just don't always know how
> big my data set is before I start.

heh. unless there is a really good case to change (as opposed to documenting
potential shortcomings when using the glib hash for large number of items or 
a keys with potential for conflicts etc) it should simply remain unchanged.  

> -- 
> Alan M. Evans <ame1 extratech com>

Open Source - the religion of doing it right

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]