Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > > >>Dean Zobec wrote: >> >>>As the project looks like a long term one and I think that fpc urgently >>>needs a optimized hash table I'll also work on a streamlined hash table >>>with a chaining technique as a collision resolution scheme and a paging >>>for the allocation of the nodes in the chains, to have an associative >>>container that would easily beat the TStringList in search speed when >>>the number of items added is more than 100.000 (the IndexOf() function >>>in an unordered TStringList does a linear search). >> >>A good hash class is even a candidate for the classes unit imo. > > > I would make that the contnrs unit. I think it belongs more together with > objects such as a stack and queue... > > What is the performance difference between a hash() and a binary search on > an ordered list ? I've also been working with an 'associative' stringlist, but > I was using an ordered stringlist to keep the data, so a binary search is > done.
Depends how the hash is parametrized. If you've a big hash array and a good hash function accessing has a complexity of O(1) while for a binary search it's O(log(n)) _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
