This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> I thought that was obvious and implicit in the whole discussion. > > Oh come on Per, you know that *nothing* is implicit or obvious > when there's an opportunity to point out a perceived mistake or > misconception and play silly games of intellectual one-up-man-ship. :-) > Standard Operating Procedure for hackers ... The issue of matching the size of the hash table to the number of keys is a bit more subtle that ``obvious and implicit'' would suggest because basing you calculations on a well chosen hash table size has an underlying assumption that the user of the hash table is always in a position to know what such a size would be. Making such an assumption is not ``obviously'' correct in my understanding. I take back what I said about the resizing hash tables though, I'm convinced by the calculations (and surprised) that the auto-resize basically triples the time for an insert but remains O(1). - Tel