Eggdev: Major flaw with 1.9 hash_table() functions (stdarg read)
stdarg at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 3 13:09:19 CST 2005
--- Darko Ilic <darko at onvol.net> wrote:
> 1-5 doesn't make it any better, either. It will probably be resized too
> often or become too long, with the kind of data we have. I had this hope
> that you actually analysed the best ratio and found out 100 is optimal
> :( A quick (an possibly wrong) guess of mine would lie somewhere around
> 10-20 for the hashtable that initially starts with 50 raws.
Once it's resized upwards it probably won't be resized for a while because we
increase the table size quite a bit. We should probably add auto-resizing when
it gets too small too, like if it's only at 10% utilization we can cut it in
10-20 isn't bad either, those are pretty small lists to search through, but on
the other hand it doesn't take more memory to store a bigger hash table than to
store a bunch of lists, so it's a pretty good tradeoff.
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
More information about the Eggdev