Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:10:22 -0400 (EDT) | From | Chuck Lever <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |