This will allow us to remove the large static table and use a
power of two hash table size that we can compute on the fly.
We can use bitmasking instead of modulo to fit our hash in the table,
and it's less code.
By using the algorithm hash = sh + i/2 + i*i/2
we are guaranteed that all retries fro
Thomas Helland writes:
> This should give better cache locality, less memory consumption,
> and should also be faster since we avoid a modulo operation.
> Also change table size to be power of two.
> This gives better performance as we can do bitmasking instead of
> modulo operations for fitting
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Helland
> wrote:
>> This should give better cache locality, less memory consumption,
>> and should also be faster since we avoid a modulo operation.
>> Also change table size to be power of two.
>> Thi
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Helland
wrote:
> This should give better cache locality, less memory consumption,
> and should also be faster since we avoid a modulo operation.
> Also change table size to be power of two.
> This gives better performance as we can do bitmasking instead of
>
This should give better cache locality, less memory consumption,
and should also be faster since we avoid a modulo operation.
Also change table size to be power of two.
This gives better performance as we can do bitmasking instead of
modulo operations for fitting the hash in the address space.
By u
