Re: Not looking like a fool
- From: Mycelium <mycelium@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:26:23 -0800
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:16:50 -0800, VelCrowPhly
<VelCrowPhly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:17:04 +0000 (UTC), ggr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Rose)
wrote:
In article <jg70sc$eh4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joe keane <jgk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <b999164d-6981-4d38-a570-bf1ef3c5b306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Earl_Colby_Pottinger <earlcolby.pottinger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Basicly, I am trying to find a fast hash system that distributes the
hash pointers very evenly across the hash entries.
You are in the wrong froup.
What is needed for a decent-performing hash function is vastly different
from what is needed for a cryptographically secure hash function.
Time for hash table is roughly:
sum[buc = 0..NBUC-1] triangle(size[buc])
I'm almost sure that many more people f--- up by not having a good
resize algorithm than by using a 'not good enough' hash function.
#define FOO_HASH(FOO) ((FOO) >> 7 ^ (FOO) >> 2)
And done, next question please.
This seems to discard the two least significant
bits of FOO, so with very high probability FOO and
FOO+1 will hash to the same bucket.
Greg.
So, does that mean that he FOOked up?
http://www.smokey-stover.com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Not looking like a fool
- From: FigureItOut
- Re: Not looking like a fool
- References:
- Re: Not looking like a fool
- From: VelCrowPhly
- Re: Not looking like a fool
- Prev by Date: Re: Not looking like a fool
- Next by Date: Re: Not looking like a fool
- Previous by thread: Re: Not looking like a fool
- Next by thread: Re: Not looking like a fool
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|