Re: sxhash redux
- From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 18:18:22 +0200
Bruno Haible <bruno@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> If CLISP limits its 64-bit version of SXHASH to the range of its 32-bit
>> non-negative fixnums then it is worthless using the hash code as a index
>> to any vector greater than 16777215 in size.
>>
>> This is a serious limitation upon the performance of any hash table with
>> many millions of elements and a practically unacceptable limitation upon
>> 64-bit platforms.
>
> The clisp developers agree. This has been fixed in the clisp CVS a week ago
> for normal hash tables, and six months ago for package symbol-tables.
Do you think that letting a hash go up to 0x3FFFFFFF (1e9) on 64-bit
platforms is enough, or it's better to have a bigger range in this
case? In the implementation I have in mind object sizes are 64-bit on
64-bit platforms, but I'm not sure whether someone will want to make
a hash table with 1e9 entries (of course it will work anyway but
collisions will be often).
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
.
- References:
- sxhash redux
- From: Adam Warner
- Re: sxhash redux
- From: Bruno Haible
- sxhash redux
- Prev by Date: Re: win32 Lisp cannot load Gtk DLLs when C can?
- Next by Date: Re: open source e-commerce
- Previous by thread: Re: sxhash redux
- Next by thread: win32 Lisp cannot load Gtk DLLs when C can?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|