Changes

A deterministic hash table proposed by Tyler Close was implemented in C++ and its performance was compared to two hash table implementations using open addressing. Speed and memory usage were measured.  '''Speed.''' The Close table implementation was very fast, faster than the tables with open addressingimplementations. (It uses is unclear why! More investigation is needed.) '''Memory.''' The Close table allocates 25% more memory (up than the leanest open addressing implementation, but it does not write to every byte allocated. Rather it writes only to 75% more)the bytes it needs. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact means thatfor large tables without remove operations, unlike the Close table will use more address space but ''less physical memory'' than a hash table with comparable open addressingimplementation. (Note however that programs very often create many small tables and fairly often perform deletes, so the Close table can leave 25% penalty will have some of the memory it allocates uninitialized until it is neededpractical impact.)