638
edits
Changes
→Abstract
'''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 always allocates 29% more memory on average than the leanest open addressing implementation on 32-bit systems, 29% more on 64-bit systems. See the Results section for details.
= Background =
