Let me correct my mistake. > If I understood correctly, your point is that O(log N) is fast enough > because the size of switch is small in practice. > But I am still not convinced that using hash table would not increase the > speed. > As we know hash table requires O(N) only. > There must be some point that O(N) bits O(logN), depending on the size > of N and the constant cost of O(N).
The notation on here of O(N) had to be O(1). Sorry. Jay
