Subject: Select your 2014 model

From: Fall Dealership Events <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:58:12 -0800

The Big 3 wants you to ride for less
Ford - GM - Chrysler
---------------------------------------

Fall is here and we made a list of your local dealerships that need to move their inventory for upcoming 2015's.

This search only takes 60-seconds.
~> http://www.semihet.com/arkansans/cooers/originates/outbacks.html

Get in a new 2014 for Half of what you would expect to dish out.

ANN Automotive STG | 207 Garrett | Greenfield | MO 65661
your-settings http://www.semihet.com/tenter/homeland/cataloguer/celerities/boniface.aspx

But in order to achieve good performance with a hash table, the size of it (the hash table) needs to be ~*2-4 of number of elements (load balance)... Otherwise - collisions will be too frequent, and it will decay to O(n) both search and update.  Yes, a hash table takes more memory than a simple array regardless of how the hash table is implemented... Question: do you have any statistics on how often when you query for the presence of 'a' it IS present and how often it is NOT present --- which one of the cases is more common or are they both as common?   With N=1000 I'm looking at 60-90% presence. Depends a bit on data sets used and exact user query, but 2:1 is a reasonable approximation of the ratio.  Hmm ok then it doesn't make sense really to optimize the algorithm for either one of the Ok, I think Cuckoo Hashing would solve this with only small memory footprint increase (say, to 7N with a 66% load factor on the hash table). See my edit.   Sorry, still working on this, and I can't 
 figure out why cuckoo hashing should be cache-efficient. It seems to use random cache lines, but only parts of them. The bucket solution appears quite reasonable (especially with one bucket = one cache line) but that makes the logic even harder. At least it should be cache-efficient generally because it can achieve very high load factors, so the whole hash table requires less memory as a whole. This is in relation to other hash table mechanisms, e.g. chained hashing as mentioned in the text.   Antti Huima Implemented by colleague, becnhmark improved by 7%. Thanks  It turns out that the actual implementation has a subtle edge case; if both hash functions return the same value you have a cycle of length 1 which you have to detect. We were lucky to find this bug in ; on our test set this didn't occur. Also, for high load tables we found "Hopscotch Hashing" as an alternative.   MSalters May 29 '12 at 9:54