Eggdev: Major flaw with 1.9 hash_table() functions (stdarg read)

stdarg stdarg at
Thu Mar 3 13:09:19 CST 2005

--- Darko Ilic <darko at> 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 mailing list