Re: Common hash table implementation

From: Eyal Lebedinsky (
Date: Sun Jul 22 2001 - 18:34:41 EST

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Yes, I tested almost all of them to see how well they worked my
> directory index application. There are really only two criterea:
> 1) How random is the hash
> 2) How efficient is it
> My testing was hardly what you would call rigorous. Basically, what I
> do is hash a lot of very unrandom strings and see how uniform the

Actually, to measure the randomness you need to measure the randomness
the output in the face of non-random input. Most well constructed hash
functions perform well when the strings are random, however real world
data (e.g. directory contntent) is not random at all.

Efficiency should measure both space and time resources. If it should
work in a multithreaded situation then another level of complexity is

Eyal Lebedinsky ( <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST