Re: hashing(HATs. A more efficient algorithm?)

["chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>]

"Wannabe h4x0r" <chris@dont.spam.me> wrote in message
news:mRot8.209679$Yv2.66927@rwcrnsc54...
> Lately I've been using Hashed Array Trees(or Tables),
> which have cut the execution time by about %40, and has
> given me a memory savings of about %20-%30. Note that I'm
> just progressing from the beginner to the intermediate
> stage in my "skillz".
>
> Basically, you start with an initial array of n number of
> elements.
> The first element is a "pointer"(however one may choose to
> define that) to the last element of the array. When the
> array is filled to n-2 elements, automatically add x
> additional elements to the array, and them set the
> pointer in the first element to point to the end of the
> array again(which should be n+x_l).
> One can use any number of methods to decide how many
> elements to add at any time, it's not fixed.
> For an additional bit of buffer overflow protection, one
> could set the pointer to point to n-2 (or n-1 or
> whatever) depending on whatever makes sense at the time.
>
> This is about the simplest damn algorithm in the world,
> at least to me it is. Heh.

I don't really get it, but this sounds like chains to me.  Can you explain
it a bitty more?

bye,
Chris