A new fast hash table in response to Google’s new fast hash table

Re:A new fast hash table in response to Google’s new fast ha... by general_pizza on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:24PM (#17181164)

Hmm I’m seeing the opposite. The last graph shows Google’s hash table outperforming in all but a few places, including at 400k. Perhaps you mixed the axes up, lower is better here.

I also just want to comment that skepticism to high claims is good but your comment seems a bit too harsh. Briefly looking at his post where he goes into his “fastest hash table” it’s quite long, very detailed and has similar graphs. That doesn’t seem under-researched to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A new fast hash table in response to Google’s new fast ha... by jbapple on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @08:18PM (#17183857)

> Hmm I’m seeing the opposite. The last graph shows Google’s hash table outperforming in all but a few places, including at 400k.

You're exactly right, General Pizza. I was trying to say that the Google table was faster, even though the author claimed that his or her table was "fastest" without qualification.

Thanks for pointing that out; I'll leave my post as it is so yours continues to make sense in context.

[ Parent | on HN ]