Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: hash table size - is a power of 2 still an advantage these days?

Author: Leen Ammeraal

Date: 10:25:49 09/24/03

Go up one level in this thread


On September 24, 2003 at 11:49:58, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On September 24, 2003 at 11:20:13, William Penn wrote:
>
>>For example, is 512MB hash table size really better than 513MB (512+1), or
>>better than 528MB (512+16)?
>>
>>Another example, is 768MB (3x256) better than 784MB (3x256+16)?
>>
>>I'm also wondering if these old rules (truisms) regarding optimum numbers for
>>hash table size only apply to the Windows 9x/Me op systems which had problems
>>with allocation of resources? I'm doubtful that they still apply to 2000/XP op
>>systems.
>>
>>Does anyone really know?
>
>The point is a bit of speed.   You have to convert a hash signature into a
>hash table index.  For a tablesize that is a power of 2, you can simply
>AND (mask) off the upper bits leaving a power-of-2 table index.  For other
>sizes, you will end up doing a divide (mod) to get the remainder.  The divide
>is not fast.
>
>How significant this is is debatable, but for some of us, "every cycle counts."
>
>
I agree that masking is to be preferred to the modulo operation.
However, what about tournaments (organized by others) that
allow a hash table size which corresponds to, for example,
12 MB entries in your table?
It seems not wise to me to use only 8 MB entries in this case
just to make the table length a power of 2.

Leen Ammeraal




This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.