lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: more on hash functions
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> Whoa! The size of the *random* tables is not related
> to the size of the *hash* table. Why should it be?
> The sizes of the random tables depend on the number of
> bits in each of the key fragments.

right, i understood that part. the range of the *values* in the random
tables, and not the range of the random table's *index*, is dependent on
the hash table size.

> As I said in the original message, the values stored
> in the random tables are in the range 0..PAGE_HASH_SIZE-1.
> If you've been picking only smaller values, no wonder the
> hash has been performing poorly!

well, i simply set the size of the hash table to be the same as the size
of the random tables. i think the only problem i caused myself was a
little inflexibility in hash table size, since the values in the
random tables were indeed random, and in the range 0...hash_table_size-1,
as you (and rivest et al.) prescribed.

- Chuck Lever
--
corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com>
personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>

The Linux Scalability project:
http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/citi-netscape/


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.895 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site