I do believe that for real world applications it will be better to allocate more memory for the table than to complicate the code.
You are missing the point. In a hash table that is filled to a certain degree, there is some effort required to add a new element (or search for an existing one). Seems there was consensus over some decades that a specific algorithm was optimal (but which had not been proved), that was disproved in the paper.
A non-optimal algorithm - even on an enlarged table - is slower than the optimal one. Just because there is a measure that can easily express a 99.999% filled table does not mean you should use it. The "asymptotic behavior" is asymptotic with the table's size for any given "fillness".
Would you state there is no point in making an engine more efficient just because you can enlarge the fuel tank?
Greetings,
🐻
In reply to Re^4: Better Hash Tables?
by jo37
in thread Better Hash Tables?
by QM
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |