638
edits
(→Method) |
(→Method) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
* A Close table can trade some speed for compactness, but it seems to be a bad bargain: | * A Close table can trade some speed for compactness, but it seems to be a bad bargain: | ||
** The load factor is adjustable. (The hash table size must remain at a power of two, but the data vector can have non-power-of-2 sizes.) However, increasing the load factor directly affects LookupMiss speed. | ** The load factor is adjustable. (The hash table size must remain at a power of two, but the data vector can have non-power-of-2 sizes.) However, increasing the load factor directly affects LookupMiss speed. | ||
** An implementation could grow the data array by less than doubling it each time. I tried this. Insert speed suffered; lookup speed was unaffected; but the modified CloseTable still used more memory than OpenTable. | ** An implementation could grow the data array by less than doubling it each time. I tried this. Insert speed suffered; lookup speed was unaffected; but the modified CloseTable still used more memory than OpenTable. | ||
edits