On 12/6/05, Eric Hanchrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using version 212 (which I got from darcs), so I expect all the
patches that have been previously mentioned have already been applied.
I'm happy to make the code available if anyone's interested (it's
small).
You can create a
I too am suffering from very slow hash tables. I'm brand-new to
chicken (although not to scheme) so it's possible that I'm doing
something wrong.
The gist of the problem is: I'm using bignums (from the numbers)
extension as the hash table key; I created the table with
(make-hash-table =); I'm
Is there a paper or book that offers a convincing, empirical argument
for this? I've read and heard this exhortation before but the
justification in the presence well designed hash and rehash functions
has always been just to be safe.
Well, I don't know of any papers or books, but I
On Aug 2, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Nelson Castillo wrote:
On 8/1/05, Ed Watkeys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_The Practice of Programming_ (Kernighan Pike) deals with a
situation analgous to this; they grow storage for a string by powers
of two. This works well because it heavily tests the algorithm
On Aug 2, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Toby Butzon wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 05:22:54PM -0400, Ed Watkeys wrote:
Yup. But you really should use prime numbers for hash tables.
Is there a paper or book that offers a convincing, empirical argument
for this? I've read and heard this exhortation
When, on the other hand, n is prime, o is always 1 so you won't need
to worry about this (you'll just need to worry that no single value
from hash(A) occurs more often than others).
Erm, o is always 1 or n. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what
happens when o is n.
Alejo.
.)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:01:42 -0500
From: Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Better algorithm for growing hash tables
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], chicken-users@nongnu.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
(use srfi
That explains Chicken's pathetic performance in the spellcheck
benchmark in the alioth shootout (
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=spellchecklang=allsort=fullcpu
) - dead last, at 35.4 seconds, compared to 16.9 seconds for the next
slowest language. It's writing and
On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
That explains Chicken's pathetic performance in the spellcheck
benchmark in the alioth shootout (
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?
test=spellchecklang=allsort=fullcpu
) - dead last, at 35.4 seconds, compared to 16.9
