From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,eec376a334ad59ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-11 16:29:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.86.7.162!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news8-gui.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "chris.danx" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: hashing(HATs. A more efficient algorithm?) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:29:16 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.253.12.28 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news8-gui.server.ntli.net 1018567769 62.253.12.28 (Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:29:29 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:29:29 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22396 Date: 2002-04-12T00:29:16+01:00 List-Id: "Wannabe h4x0r" 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