638
edits
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Speed.''' The Close table implementation was very fast, faster than the open addressing implementations. (It is unclear why; theory suggests it "should" be slower, and measurement confirms that the Close table is doing more memory accesses and more branches. More investigation is needed!) | '''Speed.''' The Close table implementation was very fast, faster than the open addressing implementations. (It is unclear why; theory suggests it "should" be slower, and measurement confirms that the Close table is doing more memory accesses and more branches. More investigation is needed!) | ||
'''Memory.''' The Close table implementation allocates 29% more memory on average than the leanest open addressing implementation on 32-bit systems, | '''Memory.''' The Close table implementation allocates 29% more memory on average than the leanest open addressing implementation on 32-bit systems, 29% more on 64-bit systems. | ||
= Background = | = Background = | ||
edits