Re: [rfc] Near-constant time directory index for Ext2

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Martin Mares wrote:
> 
> Hello!
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Rehashing is O(n), but the "n" is the _current_ number of items, not the
> maximum one after all the insertions.
> 
> Let's assume you start with a single-entry hash table. You rehash for the
> first time after inserting the first item (giving hash table of size 2),
> then after the second item (=> size 4), then after the fourth item (=> size 8)
> and so on. I.e., when you insert n items, the total cost of rehashing summed
> over all the insertions is at most 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^k (where
> k=floor(log2(n))) <= 2^k+1 = O(n). That is O(1) operations per item inserted.
> 

You're right.  However, for each hash table operation to be O(1) the size
of the hash table must be >> n.

I suggested at one point to use B-trees with a hash value as the key. 
B-trees are extremely efficient when used on a small constant-size key.

	-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