Re: AVL and hash in memory management

Helge Hafting (helge.hafting@daldata.no)
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:35:21 +0100


In <199809151131.EAA10342@dm.cobaltmicro.com>, on 09/15/98
at 04:31 AM, "David S. Miller" <davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com> said:

> From: "Koshelev Maximka" <iloveselfme@hotmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:56:29 PDT

> I am thinking this method can give better perfomance becouse tree
> becomes smaller in N times, where N is a number of elements in hash
> array.

>It is an interesting data structure, thanks for presenting it. But it
>still has one of the fundamental problems we were trying to remove by
>going to a non-tree mechanism, the balancing cost.

Seems to me that the suggested structure offer the best of both worlds:
The cases with few items won't have much balancing cost because the hash
array ensures that most trees have a root node only.

Cases with lots of items will have balancing cost, but they will also
benefit from the trees.

Helge Hafting

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
helge.hafting@daldata.no
-----------------------------------------------------------

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/