A word to the wise...

[MonkeyF0cker]

Coding your own hash function for a fixed, large set of integers with a large range to create a perfect minimal hash table is not as easy as it appears.

Birthday paradox strikes again.

That motherfucker.

 

[roguejuror]

tell durito

 

[Matty]

Sleep on it. Then it won't be your birthday anymore and you can focus more on the coding.

You're welcome.

 

[kato]

call me

 

[Saulty]

 

[fiveteamer]

I like turtles.

 

[RayRay]

 

[FreeFall]

Are hash tables really THAT slow for what you're trying to compute that you need to minimize the already negligible time to even less?

 

[Blitty]

I smoked some bomb Afghan hash in Amsterdam. Very Nice!

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

Are hash tables really THAT slow for what you're trying to compute that you need to minimize the already negligible time to even less?

Huh? I'm trying to turn a binary search O(n) operation into an indexed lookup table (see hash table) as an O(1) operation. The hash tables are intended to speed up the process and it is not a negligible difference.

Trying to hash multiple integer sets of over 10,000 with a range from 3 to 31,367,009 into an array that doesn't waste a great deal of memory without any collisions is the difficult part.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

Man. That took a while, but I now have a .NET minimal perfect hash table generator for integer sets.

Cuckoo buckets are an extraordinary implementation for resolving hashing collisions BTW.

I'm sure you all care.

 

[wal66]

I think if I understood what you just said there I would be on my way to making a substantial impact in life.

As it stands what you just said is so far over my head that I don't even feel the least bit dumber for not understanding it.

 

[choo]

Man. That took a while, but I now have a .NET minimal perfect hash table generator for integer sets.

 

[Matty]

integer