On 11.10.2013 13:42, Huchev wrote:
>
> gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
> for (i = 0; i < VALUES; i++) {
> state = XXH32_init(result);
> XXH32_update(state, &i, 4);
> XXH32_digest(state);
> }
> gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
>
>
> This code is using the "update" variant, wh
gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
for (i = 0; i < VALUES; i++) {
state = XXH32_init(result);
XXH32_update(state, &i, 4);
XXH32_digest(state);
}
gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
This code is using the "update" variant, which is only useful when dealing
with very large amount of
On 8 Říjen 2013, 13:52, Atri Sharma wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 8 Říjen 2013, 11:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
I've made some significant improvements in the chaining version (in
the
master branch), now getting about the memory consumption I've
>
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 8 Říjen 2013, 11:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
>>>
>>> I've made some significant improvements in the chaining version (in the
>>> master branch), now getting about the memory consumption I've estimated.
>>>
>> I agree, we can hope to reduce the me
On 8 Říjen 2013, 11:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
>>
>> I've made some significant improvements in the chaining version (in the
>> master branch), now getting about the memory consumption I've estimated.
>>
> I agree, we can hope to reduce the memory consumption by making changes in
> the current chaining
Sent from my iPad
>
> However I'm unable to make it at least comparable to chaining. The trick
> is that the hash table performs reasonably only until it's ~ 65-70% full,
> it gets really slow after that. So to maintain performance comparable to
> chaining, I'd have to keep the table below this
On 8 Říjen 2013, 6:23, Atri Sharma wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
>
>>> Consider the aspects associated with open addressing.Open addressing
>>> can quickly lead to growth in the main table.Also, chaining is a much
>>> cleaner way of collision resolution,IMHO.
>>
>> What do you mean by "growth in the main ta
Sent from my iPad
> On 08-Oct-2013, at 10:41, Claudio Freire wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
Consider the aspects associated with open addressing.Open addressing
can quickly lead to growth in the main table.Also, chaining is a much
cleaner way of c
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
>>> Consider the aspects associated with open addressing.Open addressing
>>> can quickly lead to growth in the main table.Also, chaining is a much
>>> cleaner way of collision resolution,IMHO.
>>
>> What do you mean by "growth in the main table"?
Hi Tomas,
>> Consider the aspects associated with open addressing.Open addressing
>> can quickly lead to growth in the main table.Also, chaining is a much
>> cleaner way of collision resolution,IMHO.
>
> What do you mean by "growth in the main table"?
Sorry, I should have been more verbose.
AFA
Hi Atri!
On 7.10.2013 16:56, Atri Sharma wrote:
>>> 3. Consider dropping buckets in favor of open addressing (linear
>>> probing, quadratic, whatever). This avoids another level of
>>> pointer indirection.
>>
>> OK, this sounds really interesting. It should be fairly
>> straightforward for fixed
On 7.10.2013 14:50, k...@rice.edu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:41:58AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> 2. Consider using a simpler/faster hash function, like FNV[1] or Jenkins[2].
>>>For fun, try not hashing those ints at all and see how that performs
>>> (that,
>>>I think, is what y
Sent from my iPad
> On 07-Oct-2013, at 4:11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> On 6.10.2013 20:37, Tomáš Janoušek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 08:22:54PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> I'm on 64-bit architecture and the example works with int32, which means
>>> the sizes should be abou
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:41:58AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > 2. Consider using a simpler/faster hash function, like FNV[1] or Jenkins[2].
> >For fun, try not hashing those ints at all and see how that performs
> > (that,
> >I think, is what you get from HashSet in Java/C#).
>
> I've
On 6.10.2013 20:37, Tomáš Janoušek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 08:22:54PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I'm on 64-bit architecture and the example works with int32, which means
>> the sizes should be about this:
>>
>> hash_element_t => 20B
>> hash_bucket_t => 4B + (20B * item
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 08:22:54PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'm on 64-bit architecture and the example works with int32, which means
> the sizes should be about this:
>
> hash_element_t => 20B
> hash_bucket_t => 4B + (20B * items in the bucket [in steps of 5])
> hash_table_t
16 matches
Mail list logo
