Hi,
Yes, for example: > > low_mask: 0x011, high_mask: 0x111, old_bucket: 0x010, new_bucket: 0x110 > > The old_bucket's hash value like 0x***010 or 0x***110, the later is in the > old_bucket is because we didn't have new_bucket before, so only hash value > like 0x***110 needs relocation: hashvalue & (low_mask + 1) != 0 > > Thanks for explaining, that clarifies things for me. It may be worthwhile to check if this change has led to any performance improvements. Thank you, Rahila syed
