Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> Hashing in htree doesn't work like that - what you're thinking about
> is a traditional fixed-size hash table. HTree is a btree that uses
> hashes of names as keys. Each block has a variable amount of the key
> space assigned to it, initially just one block for the entire key
> space. When that block fills up, its entries and its key space are
> split into two, then those blocks start to fill up, get split, and
> so on.
>
Very interesting, thanks!
> A hash function that distributes keys better should give somewhat
> better performance, and that has indeed been my experience. But
> in the case of half-MD4, the improvement we get from better
> distribution is wiped out by the higher cost of computing the hash
> function.[1] Which is not to say that the work is without value.
> The beautiful distribution given by the half-MD4 hash gives us
> something to aim at, we just have to be more efficient about it.
>
There is a way to measure the effect of the better but slower
hash. Add "time-wasting" code to the faster hash so
it gets exactly as slow as MD4. Then run benchmarks and
see the effects of the better distribution undisturbed.
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 30 2002 - 22:00:06 EST