[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATH] Use hash table instead of flat list for lam
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATH] Use hash table instead of flat list for lambda literals
Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:11:05 -0700
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:56:07PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:48:14PM -0700, Alan Post wrote:
> > If you were going to change the initial hash table size, you could
> > pick a fraction of the size of the analysis database. The numbers
> > test suggests 1/10th, for instance.
> That would fill up the hash table exactly, if it had a perfect even
> distribution. The earlier tests I did to get the best analysis database
> size indicated that the best number of buckets is about 3 times the number
> of items you're going to store in the hash table.
> So by that count it should be 3/10th, which is about 1/3rd. But again,
> that's just for this particular test. Theoretically it could be much
> more. Perhaps just using the analysis db size, without a multiplication
> factor? That should be plenty big.
I do think that choice is fine, yes. Does the hash table resize
itself when it gets too many entries in it?
.i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATH] Use hash table instead of flat list for lambda literals, Felix, 2012/02/27