[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.2.6_andrea2.bz2
    On Wed, 5 May 1999, Michael Schulz wrote:
    > >
    > i just got curious and tock a glance at your page. Astonishingly you never
    > used prime numbers for the size of the hashtable. That's bad because hashing
    > lives from computing modulus of integers to get the associated bucket-id.
    > So for obvious reasons a hash-function will always reveil better spreading
    > over the table, when it is totaly calculated within the prime modulus, which
    > is the tablesize. If you use nonprimes, objects tend to be stored in the same
    > buckets, which you basicaly what to prevent.
    > Another property of calculating within modulus is, that you don't get integer
    > overflows, even though entry-values are big.


    thanks for your note. if you read Knuth, you'll see that prime-sized hash
    tables are not necessary if you use multiplicative hashing. and, you *do*
    want multiplicative hashing with overflow because modulus hashing requires
    a division operation in the hash function, which is more expensive than a
    multiplication operation.

    in fact, Knuth proves that multiplicative hashing is at least as good as,
    and sometimes better than, modulus hashing on a prime-sized table.

    read my report again, and you'll see a histogram that shows an almost
    perfect bucket size histogram and an 87+% bucket utilization, all with a
    simple multiplicative hash function. that's as good as it gets.

    - Chuck Lever
    corporate: <>
    personal: <> or <>

    The Linux Scalability project:

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.019 / U:7.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site