Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:34:06 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Chris Pressey <cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Most wanted Message-ID: <20040307220525.X68396@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <20040307120758.13f24851.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0403011839470.3269-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <20040306013914.D38020@haldjas.folklore.ee> <20040306141742.4f41ba27.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <20040306155513.6a75e264.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <20040307210125.Y68396@haldjas.folklore.ee> <20040307120758.13f24851.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Chris Pressey wrote: > > I don't think that this invalidates my (/Colin's) point, which I'll > restate for clarity: > > The goal of computing a hash value is to reduce the search space. > (Surely this hasn't really changed, even in the most new-fangled > variation on the hash table theme?) > > And if the search space is already small, the reduction will be > insignificant compared to the time taken to compute the hash value. > I'm not saying that hash tables are the be and end all of data structures at all. so, can we agree to be in violent agreement? > -Chris >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040307220525.X68396>