Author: William Bryant
Date: 18:00:11 05/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2000 at 18:55:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: [big snip] > >simplicity. I want a power of 2 for the size. which means that one has to >be 1/2 the size of the other, to let the hash table take up 3/4 of memory >and still be a power of 2. I tried making the depth-prefered table bigger, >then tried it smaller. Smaller was more efficient, by a fairly small amount. > >The alternative would be a combined table with (say) 3 entries per bucket, >with the first being depth-prefered, the last being always store, and the >middle one a place to save whatever the other two overwrote. > As I understand it, the idea with the dual entry hash table is that each hash address holds two hash enteries, 1 depth prefered, 1 always replace. Wouldn't this make both tables "the same size"? Or are you using two different tables and indexing into each one independently? William wbryant@ix.netcom.com
This page took 0 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.