On 21-Feb-2001 Martin Mares wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> To have O(1) you've to have the number of hash entries > number of files and
>> a
>> really good hasing function.
>
> No, if you enlarge the hash table twice (and re-hash everything) every time
> the
> table fills up, the load factor of the table keeps small and everything is
> O(1)
> amortized, of course if you have a good hashing function. If you are really
> smart and re-hash incrementally, you can get O(1) worst case complexity, but
> the multiplicative constant is large.
My personal preference goes to skiplist coz it doesn't have fixed ( or growing
) tables to handle. You've simply a stub of data togheter with FS data in each
direntry.
And performance ( O(log2(n)) ) are the same for whatever number of entries.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 23 2001 - 21:00:25 EST