Fibonacci Hashing revisted
frink at thep.physik.uni-mainz.de
Thu May 2 15:54:53 CEST 2002
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> suggesting an improvement of a factor 260 or 270. At the same time,
> the timings got only very marginally better, indicating that there is
> nothing to be gained by better hash functions, even perfect
> collision-free ones (if they would exist), since deep traversals caused by
> equal objects outweight deep traversals caused by hash collisions of
> different objects.
Did you also measure the ratio between comparisons which turn out
to be equal to those turning out to be different?
But there will still a business case for better hash functions,
if you plan to revive the hash-based expairseq-combining.
Alexander Frink E-Mail: Alexander.Frink at Uni-Mainz.DE
Institut fuer Physik Phone: +49-6131-3923391
D-55099 Mainz, Germany
More information about the GiNaC-devel