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

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On 21-Feb-2001 Martin Mares wrote:
> 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.

My personal preference goes to skiplist coz it doesn't have fixed ( or growing
) tables to handle. You've simply a stub of data togheter with FS data in each
direntry.
And performance ( O(log2(n)) ) are the same for whatever number of entries.




- Davide