Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:56:01 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 21:51:23, Landon Rabern wrote: >I have noticed in reading that some people do their hash tables differently than >I do. They have two parts, a smart replace and an always replace. > >I was wondering if this is better than the pure smart replace, and if so why and >how much of an improvment it would make. > > >Thanks, > >Landon W. Rabern The two-table approach is not necessarily better or worse. It is simpler, and came from Ken Thompson, as that is a very easy hardware algorithm, and since Belle was all hardware, it made sense. It also is attractive as a general-purpose way of solving the problem as well... and the net effect is like a 2-way set associative cache where one line is in the depth-preferred table, and the other is in the always-replace table.
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.