In message <000201bdfbc6$428d6120$LocalHost@template> you write:
> The hashtable knows this. It's not a direct mapping of hash code to value
> ... it's hash code to a linked list of values with the same hash code.
> Hashtables are normally implemented this way, actually, and in a normal
> hashtable implementation you will have a lot of different hashcodes sharing
> the same linked list.
Fair enough, but how and where is the index into the hash table
determined? If it's just a truncation (val%table_size) then you
should see real problems with object locality causing hash table
conflicts (i.e. linked lists with non-unit length). Knuth recommends
a 32-bit unsigned multiply by 2654435769U (a very simple
pseudo-randomizer) before the modulus to table size.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Iverson SRI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park CA 94025
http://www.ai.sri.com/~leei/ (650) 859-3307
