On Monday, December 5, 2011 1:50:08 PM UTC+8, Dan Stromberg wrote: > Two methods: > 1) If you need your hash only once in an infrequent while, then save > the elements in a list, appending as needed, and sort prior to > hashing, as needed > > 2) If you need your hash more often, you could keep your elements in a > treap or red-black tree; these will maintain sortedness throughout the > life of the datastructure. > > 3) If A bunch of log(n) or n or nlog(n) operations doesn't sound > appealing, then you might try this one: Create some sort of mapping > from your elements to the integers. Then just use a sum. This won't > scatter things nearly as well as a cryptographic hash, but it's very > fast, because you don't need to reevaluate some of your members as you > go. > > HTH > A sorted list can behave like a hash table. This is of O(log(n)) in accesses of n items in theory.
I agree with you a hash key computation method too slow than a list of n items in accesses for a range of n items should be reloadable. But this is not supported in Python yet. For tedious trivial jobs of non-heavy computing , I'll opt for easy use. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
