Re: [rfc] Near-constant time directory index for Ext2
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
21 Feb 2001 14:14:20 -0800
Followup to: <20010221223238.A17903@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
By author: Martin Mares <mj@suse.cz>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Hello!
>
> > To have O(1) you've to have the number of hash entries > number of files and a
> > really good hasing function.
>
> No, if you enlarge the hash table twice (and re-hash everything) every time the
> table fills up, the load factor of the table keeps small and everything is O(1)
> amortized, of course if you have a good hashing function. If you are really
> smart and re-hash incrementally, you can get O(1) worst case complexity, but
> the multiplicative constant is large.
>
Not true. The rehashing is O(n) and it has to be performed O(log n)
times during insertion. Therefore, insertion is O(log n).
-hpa
--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/