You can try make sure thay you have minimal collisions in your hash
table, by making it large enough, depending on number of children at
each node. You will need to experiment a bit for this.
Then you can just use a very simple hash function which is fast and
simple for this context. This will mak
Kevin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Any rule of thumb as how to write a tree data structure for fast
> "updating / traverse"?
>
> For example, say we have a tree like:
>
> a
>bc de
>fg
Kevin wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> That's what I am thinking: a friend told me that, sometimes a linear
> look up can be faster than the hashtable, especially when the size is
> "small". But I am not sure how "small" will be that (since in my case,
> I estimate the average children number of a node will b
Thanks.
That's what I am thinking: a friend told me that, sometimes a linear
look up can be faster than the hashtable, especially when the size is
"small". But I am not sure how "small" will be that (since in my case,
I estimate the average children number of a node will be 100-500). So I
am tryi
