Yuri Dolgov wrote: > I've done couple of experiments with different hash functions > (including all the functions proposed in this mail thread), but none > of them worked satisfactorily for hashmap with small number of elemts > (32-64) when I've changed only upper bits. Do you have any progress > so far?
What usecase does this represent? I agree with Sergey that we probably don't want to spend much time 'improving' the incoming hashCode() inside the hashMap, but should just ensure we don't suck for the most common range of values. Regards, Tim
