[MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com>] > If the current scheme suffers only for small tables, couldn't you use an > alternative scheme only for small tables?
Sure. But whether that's desirable partly depends on timing actual C code. Try it ;-) For maintenance sanity, it's obviously better to have only one scheme to wrestle with. Note that "may visit a slot more than once" isn't the only thing in play, just one of the seemingly important things. For example, the current scheme requires 3 adds, 2 shifts, and a mask on each loop iteration (or 1 add and 1 shift of those could be replaced by 1 multiplication). The double-hashing schemes only require 1 add and 1 mask per iteration. In cases of collision, that difference is probably swamped by waiting for cache misses. But, as I said in the first msg: """ This is a brain dump for someone who's willing to endure the interminable pain of arguing about benchmarks ;-) """ _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
