From: Ralph Loader <suckfish@ihug.co.nz>
To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl
Cc: Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kaih@khms.westfalen.de
Subject: Re: [rfc] Near-constant time directory index for Ext2
Date: 24 Feb 2001 10:43:16 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200102232143.f1NLhG202360@sucky.fish> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <UTC200102230152.CAA138669.aeb@vlet.cwi.nl>
Hi,
I while ago I did some experimentation with simple bit-op based string
hash
functions. I.e., no multiplications / divides in the hash loop.
The best I found was:
int hash_fn (char * p)
{
int hash = 0;
while (*p) {
hash = hash + *p;
// Rotate a 31 bit field 7 bits:
hash = ((hash << 7) | (hash >> 24)) & 0x7fffffff;
}
return hash;
}
[I haven't kept my test program / data set - if anyone compares the
above
to the others functions mentioned on the list, let me know.]
The 31 and 7 were determined experimentally. But the 31 has a
theoretical
explanation (which might even be valid):
The rotate is equivalent to a multiplication by x**7 in Z_2[P=0],
where P is the polynomial x**31 - 1 (over Z_2).
Presumably the "best" P would be irreducible - but that would have more
bits set in the polynomial, making reduction harder. A compromise is to
choose P in the form x**N - 1 but with relatively few factors.
X**31 - 1 is such a P.
Also, a 32 bit rotate (modulo X**32 - 1, which is equal
to (X - 1) ** 32 over Z_2), came out pretty badly.
One thing that shouldn't be forgotten about hashing for hash tables
is that you have to reduce the hash value to the required range - doing
that well greatly reduces the difference between various hash functions.
Ralph.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-23 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-23 1:52 Andries.Brouwer
2001-02-23 21:43 ` Ralph Loader [this message]
2001-02-23 22:37 ` Guest section DW
2001-02-24 2:47 ` Ralph Loader
2001-02-24 5:34 ` Ralph Loader
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-02-23 12:38 Andries.Brouwer
2001-02-23 2:49 Andries.Brouwer
2001-02-23 3:42 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-23 12:20 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-02-23 18:57 ` Andreas Dilger
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102211740550.1933-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
2001-02-21 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-20 15:04 Daniel Phillips
2001-02-20 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-20 21:08 ` Jeremy Jackson
2001-02-20 21:20 ` Mike Dresser
2001-02-20 22:36 ` Jeremy Jackson
2001-02-20 23:08 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-21 1:04 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2001-02-21 16:38 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-20 22:58 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-02-20 21:41 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-21 0:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-21 0:30 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-21 2:35 ` Ed Tomlinson
2001-02-21 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-21 23:34 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-02-21 23:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-21 23:57 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-22 0:35 ` Ed Tomlinson
2001-02-21 1:01 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-02-22 2:28 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-22 3:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-22 16:33 ` Chris Mason
2001-02-22 22:30 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-21 17:21 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-02-21 21:08 ` Martin Mares
2001-02-21 21:29 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-02-21 21:32 ` Martin Mares
2001-02-21 21:59 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-02-21 22:26 ` Martin Mares
2001-02-21 22:43 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-02-21 22:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-21 22:32 ` Martin Mares
2001-02-21 22:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-21 22:50 ` Martin Mares
2001-02-21 22:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-21 23:07 ` Martin Mares
2001-02-21 23:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-21 23:42 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-21 23:52 ` Davide Libenzi
[not found] ` <3A945081.E6EB78F4@innominate.de>
2001-02-21 23:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-22 1:22 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-22 1:42 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-22 2:03 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-02-22 2:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-22 3:43 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-22 4:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-22 5:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-22 11:31 ` Ingo Oeser
2001-02-22 18:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-22 4:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-22 7:03 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-02-22 4:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-02-22 10:35 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-23 0:59 ` Felix von Leitner
2001-02-22 3:08 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-02-22 7:20 ` Bill Wendling
2001-02-22 8:34 ` Rogier Wolff
2001-02-21 23:26 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-02-22 19:04 ` Kai Henningsen
2001-02-22 18:38 ` Kai Henningsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200102232143.f1NLhG202360@sucky.fish \
--to=suckfish@ihug.co.nz \
--cc=Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl \
--cc=Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kaih@khms.westfalen.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®