Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:36:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, current@freebsd.org, gibbs@plutotech.com Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709241736.LAA12962@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709241726.DAA04836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> References: <199709241726.DAA04836@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> Hash lookup is non-deterministic, since searching is required to handlle > >> collisions. > > > >You had stated earlier that it would be easy to build a perfect hash > >generator. > > Only for a special case. > > >> handlers where we would prefer deterministic behaviour. Note that hash > >> lookup is not required for timeout() since we don't care about duplicates. > > > >Right, but hash insertion in the case of duplicates is still > >non-deterministic. > > No it isn't, at least for STAILQ chained hash tables. Since we don't care > about duplicates, we can just add to the end of the queue. For an open hash table, yes, for a closed hash table, no. But, that's splitting hairs. (I was thinking of using a closed hash-table.) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709241736.LAA12962>