Well, that's because the log of the largest possible hash table is like, what, less than 100?
Robby On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:28 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users <racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On May 25, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jon Zeppieri <zeppi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:16 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users >> <racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> Following up on a discussion I had with another teacher here, I decided to >>> briefly investigate the running time of insertion and deletion on mutable >>> vs immutable hash tables. I was a bit disappointed to find that it turns >>> out that insertion really doesn’t look very constant-time for insertion… or >>> for lookup, actually. I drew some pictures: tell me what you think! >>> >>> https://www.brinckerhoff.org/blog/2017/05/25/hash-table-timings/ >>> >>> John >> >> Immutable hash operations are logarithmic, not constant time. > > I believe our documentation says they’re “effectively constant-time”. > > John > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
