Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 08:17:24 12/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 2001 at 15:56:32, Sven Reichard wrote: > >Summarizing I can say that I see no connection between the quality of hash codes >and their Hamming distance. Using a good RNG like the one provided in GNU's >stdlib will yield good hash codes ( you can actually prove that), and so I will >take the codes as they are supplied by rand() or random() without messing with >them and thereby most likely make them worse. > Your argument seems convincing, good thinking. All I can say is that my hashtable worked clearly better when I switched from random numbers "out of the box" from a random()-function, to a set I generated myself using the Hamming-distance as a measure of quality. It doesn't prove anything and was a long time ago. Maybe I should test again... Ralf >Sorry for the length of this message and my rambling on. Thanks for your >patience and any feedback. Actually I bet a case of beer that nobody reads up to >this point (just kidding). > >Later, >Sven.
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.