Re: glib hash memory footprint
- From: Sander Vesik <sander_traveling yahoo co uk>
- To: James Henstridge <james jamesh id au>, "Alan M. Evans" <ame1 extratech com>
- Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: glib hash memory footprint
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:22:25 +0100 (BST)
--- James Henstridge <james jamesh id au> wrote:
> On 01/09/04 06:08, Alan M. Evans wrote:
>
> >For a bonus, if the
> >array is kept sorted, then chained lookups can be binary searches. (Even
> >with the linked list, it is possible to reduce the cost of lookups if
> >the list is kept sorted.) This type of optimization is not possible with
> >linear probing.
> >
> >
> The GHashTable API requires the user to provide a hash function and an
> equality function. How would you sort the items in the chain using
> these operators? Adding an extra API to specify a comparison function
> doesn't sound like a good idea, since glib would need to keep the code
> for programs that don't set a comparison function, and every existing
> program using GHashTable would need to be modified to take advantage of
> the optimisation.
>
If you end up sorting chains, then you probably have too many conflicts
and should rather consider using a different hashing function. It might
be that glib should offer an easy way to profile what is hapenning with
the hash and how efficently its being used (and possibly a way to force
growth) but I really don't see benefits from adding sorting and complicated
lookups to the hash. Rehashes also become more expensive this way.
> James.
>
> --
> Email: james jamesh id au
> WWW: http://www.jamesh.id.au/
>
=====
Open Source - the religion of doing it right
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]