Click here to Skip to main content
15,112,232 members
Articles / Programming Languages / C++
Article
Posted 29 Jul 2020

Tagged as

Stats

6.6K views
167 downloads
10 bookmarked

A New Implementation for a Fast Hash Table

Rate me:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
5.00/5 (2 votes)
2 Aug 2020MIT9 min read
A merge of ordered array and hash table
A data structure that looks like an ordered array and behaves like a hash table. Any value can be accessed by its index or by its name. It preserves the elements' order and uses two memory blocks. Therefore, it has an initial size, and collisions do not cause new allocations. When resized, it drops deleted items and resets its hash base.

Introduction

Hash tables are data structures that enable locating values using string keys. Some hash tables are fast in insertion, and some in finding values. A few implementations suffer from slow deletion, memory fragmentation, or their performance degrade with more items. Most hash tables do not store items by order, or retrieve a value using an index, and have to consume more memory for fast searching or to keep track of the order if they support that. However, this implementation may offer more speed with less trading.

Implementation

For a data structure to retrieve values using numbers, it needs to be a linear array, and when its memory block reaches its limit, it expands to a new heap and moves all of its items from the old memory to the new one. Therefore, it has to be a one-dimensional array. Though it is not just an array or a hash table, it is both.

MC++
template <typename Value_>
class HArray {
    size_t  size_{0};
    size_t  capacity_{0};
    Value_ *storage_{nullptr};
};

The variable size_ holds the number of items, capacity_ is for the size of the heap/memory block, and storage_ points to the location of the first value. Still, items have to store more than just values; they need the variable Key and its hash for HArray to function as a hash table.

MC++
template <typename Key_, typename Value_>
struct HAItem {
    size_t   Hash;
    Key_     Key;
    Value_   Value;
};

template <typename Key_, typename Value_>
class HArray {
    size_t                  size_{0};
    size_t                  capacity_{0};
    HAItem<Key_, Value_>   *storage_{nullptr};
};

A linear array insertion looks like the following:

MC++
private:
void insert_(Key_ key, Value_ value, size_t hash) {
    if (size_ == capacity_) {
        // expand
    }

    HAItem<Key_, Value_> &item = storage_[size_];

    item.Hash  = hash;
    item.Key   = key;
    item.Value = value;

    ++size_;
}

But, for the hash table to work, it needs a searching technique and deals with collisions. One way to solve that is to add a linked list by adding an extra variable Next to the structure, to point to the item that comes next. Therefore, the new structure looks like:

MC++
template <typename Key_, typename Value_>
struct HAItem {
    size_t     Hash;
    HAItem    *Next;
    Key_       Key;
    Value_     Value;
};

The searching technique compares a given key to a stored one. It locates it by dividing its hash value over (capacity – 1) and the remainder – of that division point to an index, a location in the allocated heap. If the compare function sought that the two keys are different, then it checks the pointer Next to see if its item holds the same key or not, and keeps on looking until it finds it or hits a null pointer. However, an infinite loop could occur.

Assume capacity_ is 21, and there are two items to be inserted: item1 has a hash value equal to 41, and item2 has its hash set to 60. The location of item1 is 41 % (21 - 1) = 41 % 20 = 1. The algorithm will lookup index 1 and set the last/null Next pointer to point to item1. For item2, 60 % 20 = 0, thus, storage_[0].Next is set to point to item2; assuming Next is null. Now, if a new item comes in with a hash value of 20, 40, 21, 41 … it will point to either item1 or item2, and when it does, it will see item1 pointing to item2 and item2.Next pointing back to item1, and when it tries to find the end of the linked list, it will end up in an infinite loop.

That is fixable by storing the start address, and checking every Next variable, then break the loop if they match, then insert the new item between the last Next and the one after it (it could be null). However, there is a faster way, and that way is by adding another pointer named Anchor. Therefore, the final structure of HAItem looks like:

MC++
template <typename Key_, typename Value_>
struct HAItem {
    HAItem    *Anchor{nullptr};
    size_t     Hash{0};
    HAItem    *Next{nullptr};
    Key_       Key{};
    Value_     Value{};
};

Now Next is for collision only, and Anchor points to the location of the item. With that, Next will point to forward elements (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and CPU prefetching may bring the next item, while the search function is comparing the given key with the current item’s Key. However, Anchor could point to anyone at that heap, and if it is null, then the item does not exist.

To understand the concept, assume that we have an array that has the capacity of 6 elements, and we need to insert the following items:

key Value Hash
item1 A 10
item2 B 15
item3 C 21
item4 D 24

The base for the hash table is (capacity – 1), which is 5. item1 is inserted in location 0 - because 10 % 5 is 0, hence, storage_[0].Anchor = the pointer of index 0. item2 is inserted at index 1, but its hash result points to 0 (15 % 5 = 0), the search function will lookup index 0 and finds item1, then it checks its Next pointer to find the final pointer that has a null value and set it to point to item2. item3 is placed in index 3, and its hash points to index 1. Even though there is an item in index 1, its Anchor is null, and the function will set storage_[1].Anchor to point to item3. item4 will get the index 3, and its hash result points to index 4, therefore, storage_[4].Anchor = &item3. And the data will look like:

Image 1

There is no need for rehashing, binary tree, separated hash table, or additional pointers. Also, having the variable Anchor means the search function can always return a reference to a pointer, and it can reference Anchor or Next, and that pointer could point to an item or null. The search function can be defined as:

MC++
public:
Value_ *Find(const Key_ &key) {
    HAItem_T *item = *(find_(key, hash_fun_(key)));

    if (item != nullptr) {
        return &(item->Value);
    }

    return nullptr;
}

private:
HAItem_T **find_(const Key_ &key, size_t hash) const {
    if (capacity_ == 0) {
        // To prevent dividing by zero, allocate a small heap.
        capacity_ = 2;
        storage_  = new HAItem_T[capacity_];
    }

    HAItem_T **item = &(storage_[(hash % capacity_)].Anchor);

    while (((*item) != nullptr) && ((*item)->Key != key)) {
        item = &((*item)->Next);
    }

    return item;
}

Hash tables check every inserted item to see if it exists or not, and with find_(), it returns a reference to that item. When it exists, it replaces its value with the given one, and if it does not, the returned reference points to where the new item should be placed in the hash table; two birds, one stone:

MC++
public:
Value_ &operator[](Key_ &&key) {
    const size_t hash = hash_fun_(key);
    HAItem_T **item   = find_(key, hash);

    if ((*item) == nullptr) {
        insert_(static_cast<Key_ &&>(key), hash, item);
    }

    return (*item)->Value;
}

private:
void insert_(Key_ &&key, size_t hash, HAItem_T **position) {
    if (index_ == capacity_) {
        Resize(capacity_ * 2);
        position = find_(key, hash);
    }

    (*position) = (storage_ + index_);
    (*position)->Hash    = hash;
    (*position)->Key     = static_cast<Key_ &&>(key);

    ++index_;
    ++size_;
}

The only time find_() is called twice, is when the size of the memory block changes; because the base depends on the value of capacity_.

MC++
public:
void Resize(size_t new_size) {
    capacity_ = ((new_size > 1) ? new_size : 2);

    if (index_ > new_size) {
        index_ = new_size; // Shrink
    }

    const size_t base = (capacity_ - 1);
    size_t       n    = 0;
    size_t       m    = 0;

    HAItem_T *src = storage_;
    storage_      = new HAItem_T[capacity_];

    while (n != index_) {
        HAItem_T &src_item = src[n];
        ++n;

        if (src_item.Hash != 0) {
            HAItem_T *des_item = (storage_ + m);
            des_item->Hash    = src_item.Hash;
            des_item->Key     = static_cast<Key_ &&>(src_item.Key);
            des_item->Value   = static_cast<Value_ &&>(src_item.Value);

            HAItem_T **position = &(storage_[(des_item->Hash % base)].Anchor);

            while (*position != nullptr) {
                position = &((*position)->Next);
            }

            *position = des_item;

            ++m;
        }
    }

    index_ = size_ = m;
    delete[] src;
}

Since Resize() does not need to check if the item exists or not, the rehashing mechanize is very simple (4 lines of code):

MC++
HAItem_T **position = &(storage_[(des_item->Hash % base)].Anchor);

while (*position != nullptr) {
    position = &((*position)->Next);
}

*position = des_item;

The line if (src_item.Hash != 0) drops any deleted items, and deletion is the same as insertion, but it keeps track of the item that comes before the one that is going to remove; to set its Next to the Next of the next item. Also, it clears the value and the key, but keeps Next and Anchor intact; because they hold the hashing info.

C++
public:
inline void Delete(const Key_ &key) {
    delete_(key);
}

public:
void DeleteIndex(size_t index) {
    if (index < index_) {
        const HAItem_T &item = storage_[index];

        if (item.Hash != 0) {
            delete_(item.Key, item.Hash);
        }
    }
}

private:
void delete_(const Key_ &key, size_t hash) {
    if (capacity_ != 0) {
        HAItem_T **item = &(storage_[(hash % capacity_)].Anchor);
        HAItem_T **before = item;

        while (((*item) != nullptr) && ((*item)->Key != key)) {
            before = item; // Store the previous item
            item   = &((*item)->Next);
        }

        if ((*item) != nullptr) {
            HAItem_T *c_item = *item; // Current item

            if ((*before) >= (*item)) {
                /*
                * If "before" inserted after "item"
                * (e.g., deleting items from 0 to n).
                */
                (*before) = c_item->Next;
            } else {
                /*
                * If "before" inserted before "item"
                * (e.g., deleting items from n to 0).
                */
                (*item) = c_item->Next;
            }

            c_item->Hash  = 0;
            c_item->Next  = nullptr;
            c_item->Key   = Key_();
            c_item->Value = Value_();
            --size_;
        }
    }
}

Since HArray is an array at its heart, it is possible to add a constructor that takes an initial size:

MC++
explicit HArray(size_t size) : capacity_(size) {
    if (size != 0) {
        storage_ = new HAItem_T[capacity_];
    }
}

Nevertheless, it is also possible to reach any key or value by an index:

C++
Value_ *GetValue(size_t index) {
    if (index < index_) {
        HAItem_T &item = storage_[index];

        if (item.Hash != 0) {
            return &(item.Value);
        }
    }

    return nullptr;
}

const Key_ *GetKey(size_t index) const {
    if (index < index_) {
        const HAItem_T &item = storage_[index];

        if (item.Hash != 0) {
            return &(item.Key);
        }
    }

    return nullptr;
}

const HAItem_T *GetItem(size_t index) const {
    if (index < index_) {
        const HAItem_T &item = storage_[index];

        if (item.Hash != 0) {
            return &(item);
        }
    }

    return nullptr;
}

Improved Implementation

While the previous implementation works and its performance is all right, there is room for improvement, starting by determining the weakest chain.

Looking at the code, the most used variable is Anchor, and it needs to be initialized even if there is no item associated with it, along with the entire structure of HAItem. Therefore, two things are needed: one, is moving Anchor to its separated data structure, and two is allocating uninitialized memory block; to avoid setting the variable twice, or not having to initialize any part of it unless it is needed. For number two, std::allocator is suitable. Therefore, the new structures are as follows:

MC++
template <typename Key_, typename Value_>
struct HAItem {
    size_t  Hash;
    HAItem *Next;
    Key_    Key;
    Value_  Value;
};

struct HAItem_P {
    HAItem_T *Anchor{nullptr};
};

template <typename Key_, typename Value_, typename Hash_ = std::hash<Key_>,
          typename Allocator_ = std::allocator<HAItem<Key_, Value_>>>
    size_t       size_{0};
    size_t       index_{0};
    size_t       capacity_{0};
    HAItem_P   * hash_table_{nullptr};
    HAItem_T   * storage_{nullptr};
    Allocator_   allocator_{};
};

 

Image 2

The rest is almost the same, but since Anchor is in its separated heap, increasing its size will not affect much compared to before, and making it larger provides faster lookups and make fewer calls to Next; because of fewer collisions:

MC++
private:
void insert_(Key_ &&key, size_t hash, HAItem_T **&position) {
    if (index_ == capacity_) {
        Resize(capacity_ * 2);
        position = find_(key, hash);
    }

    (*position) = (storage_ + index_);
    new (*position) HAItem_T{hash, nullptr, static_cast<Key_ &&>(key), Value_{}};

    ++index_;
    ++size_;
}

private:
HAItem_T **find_(const Key_ &key, size_t hash) {
    if (capacity_ == 0) {
        // To prevent dividing by zero, allocate a small heap.
        capacity_   = 1;
        hash_table_ = new HAItem_P[(capacity_ * 2)];
        storage_    = allocator_.allocate(capacity_);
    }

    HAItem_T **item = &(hash_table_[(hash % (capacity_ * 2))].Anchor);

    while (((*item) != nullptr) && ((*item)->Key != key)) {
        item = &((*item)->Next);
    }

    return item;
}

private:
void delete_(const Key_ &key, size_t hash) {
    if (capacity_ != 0) {
        HAItem_T **item = &(hash_table_[(hash % (capacity_ * 2))].Anchor);

        ...
    }
}

The resizing function can be split into two: one handles the items, the other generates the hash:

C++
public:
void Resize(size_t new_size) {
    const size_t old_capacity = capacity_;

    capacity_ = ((new_size > 1) ? new_size : 2);

    if (index_ > new_size) {
        destruct_range_((storage_ + new_size), (storage_ + index_));
        index_ = new_size; // Shrink
    }

    size_t n = 0;
    size_t m = 0;

    delete[] hash_table_;
    HAItem_T *src = storage_;
    storage_      = allocator_.allocate(capacity_);

    while (n != index_) {
        HAItem_T &src_item = src[n];
        ++n;

        if (src_item.Hash != 0) {
            HAItem_T *des_item = (storage_ + m);

            new (des_item)
                HAItem_T{src_item.Hash, nullptr,
                        static_cast<Key_ &&>(src_item.Key),
                        static_cast<Value_ &&>(src_item.Value)};

            ++m;
        }
    }

    index_ = size_ = m;
    allocator_.deallocate(src, old_capacity);

    generate_hash_();
}

private:
void generate_hash_() {
    // hash_table_ should be deleted before this.

    const size_t base = (capacity_ * 2);

    if (base != 0) {
        hash_table_ = new HAItem_P[base];

        for (size_t i = 0; i < size_; i++) {
            HAItem_T *item = (storage_ + i);

            HAItem_T **position = &(hash_table_[(item->Hash % base)].Anchor);

            while (*position != nullptr) {
                position = &((*position)->Next);
            }

            *position = item;
        }
    }
}

Improved Lookup

The remaining question now is: can it be faster? The answer is: Yes, it can be, with one simple change; replacing the division % with bitwise AND & in find_() function to be (hash & (base - 1)). The -1 is to avoid getting the size of hash table, or zeros. To understand this more, assume the size of the hash table is 4: the lookup will be 0 & 4 = 0, 1 & 4 = 0, 2 & 4 = 0, 3 & 4 = 0, but 4 & 4 = 4, which is not a valid index. Also, more zeros means more collisions. However, 1 & 3 = 1, 2 & 3 = 2, and 3 & 3 = 3, 4 & 3 = 0. Now all of them can be placed and located in the hash table.

MC++
private:
HAItem_T **find_(const Key_ &key, size_t hash) {
    if (capacity_ == 0) {
        base_       = 1;
        capacity_   = 1;
        hash_table_ = new HAItem_P[base_ + 1];
        storage_    = allocator_.allocate(capacity_);
    }

    HAItem_T **item = &(hash_table_[(hash & base_)].Anchor);

    while (((*item) != nullptr) && ((*item)->Key != key)) {
        item = &((*item)->Next);
    }

    return item;
}

That method works well when the size can be presented as 2 to the power of N 2^n: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, ... that because computers speak binary code only. Take the following table for example:

N & (7-1) Result
0 & 6 0
1 & 6 0
2 & 6 2
3 & 6 2
4 & 6 4
5 & 6 4
6 & 6 6

0 collided with 1, 2 with 3, and 4 with 5. Now, If the size is 8, which is 2^3:

N & (8-1) Result
0 & 7 0
1 & 7 1
2 & 7 2
3 & 7 3
4 & 7 4
5 & 7 5
6 & 7 6

No collisions! Therefore, it is O(1), but it is not that simple, because entries have keys, and the values are hashes of keys. Still, it produces fewer collisions.

Since HArry has a growth factor of 2: 1, 2, 4, 8, ... Then there is no problem using bitwise AND over making the CPU spend more time calculate, when it can be done in one operation, Well, yes, and no. Yes, if it used without initial size, and no because it has Compress(), Resize() and SetCapacity(). If it merged with another array, the sum of elements from both of them becomes the new size, if it is not less than the capacity. For that, HArry requires an additional method to align the base_:

C++
private:
void set_base_(size_t n_size) noexcept {
    base_ = 1U;
    base_ <<= CLZL(static_cast<unsigned long>(n_size));

    if (base_ < n_size) {
        base_ <<= 1U;
    }

    --base_;
}

With base_ being the new variable to the class:

MC++
...
class HArray {
    size_t      base_{0};
    size_t      index_{0};
    size_t      size_{0};
    size_t      capacity_{0};
    HAItem_P *  hash_table_{nullptr};
    HAItem_T *  storage_{nullptr};
    Allocator_  allocator_{};
};

For the rest:

C++
public:
void Resize(size_t new_size) {
    if (index_ > new_size) {
        destruct_range_((storage_ + new_size), (storage_ + index_));
        index_ = new_size; // Shrink
    }

    set_base_(new_size);
    resize_(new_size);
}

private:
void resize_(size_t new_size) {
    HAItem_T *src = storage_;
    storage_      = allocator_.allocate(new_size);
    size_t n      = 0;
    size_t m      = 0;

    while (n != index_) {
        HAItem_T &src_item = src[n];
        ++n;

        if (src_item.Hash != 0) {
            HAItem_T *des_item = (storage_ + m);
            ++m;

            new (des_item)
                HAItem_T{src_item.Hash, nullptr,
                            static_cast<Key_ &&>(src_item.Key),
                            static_cast<Value_ &&>(
                                src_item.Value)}; // Construct *des_item
        }
    }

    index_ = size_ = m;

    delete[] hash_table_;
    allocator_.deallocate(src, capacity_);
    capacity_ = new_size;
    generate_hash_();
}

private:
void generate_hash_() {
    hash_table_ = new HAItem_P[(base_ + 1)];

    for (size_t i = 0; i < index_; i++) {
        HAItem_T * item     = (storage_ + i);
        HAItem_T **position = &(hash_table_[(item->Hash & base_)].Anchor);

        ...
    }
}

private:
void insert_(Key_ &&key, size_t hash, HAItem_T **&position) {
    if (size_ == capacity_) {
        ++base_;
        base_ *= 2;
        --base_;

        resize_(capacity_ * 2);
        position = find_(key, hash);
    }

    ...
}

private:
void delete_(const Key_ &key, size_t hash) {
    if (capacity_ != 0) {
        HAItem_T **item = &(hash_table_[(hash & base_)].Anchor);
        ...
    }
}

For the constructor with the initial size:

MC++
explicit HArray(size_t size) : capacity_{size} {
    set_base_(size);
    hash_table_ = new HAItem_P[(base_ + 1)];
    storage_    = allocator_.allocate(capacity_);
}

Now, it competes with the fastest.

Benchmark

Image 3

Image 4

Image 5

Image 6

Image 7

Image 8

Note: English words are from: https://github.com/dwyl/english-words

Compile

  • cmake

    • Linux

BAT
mkdir build
cd build
cmake -D BUILD_TESTING=0 ..
cmake --build .
./benchmark
  • Windows

BAT
mkdir build
cd build
cmake -D BUILD_TESTING=0 ..
cmake --build . --config Release
.\Release\benchmark.exe
  • GCC/Clang

BAT
mkdir build
c++ -O3 -std=c++11 -I ./include ./src/benchmark.cpp -o ./build/benchmark
./build/benchmark

Conclusion

While there are many implementations of hash tables, very few of them provide accessing elements using an index, and some of them suffer from memory fragmentation. Also, storing items in order could cause slow lookup. This implementation takes an ordered array and adds a hashing functionality to it, to make a new hash table that is fast and more usable in ~300 lines of code.

GitHub repo: https://github.com/HaniAmmar/HArray

Example

C++
#include <iostream>
#include <string>

#include "HArray.hpp"

using Qentem::HArray;

int main() {
    HArray<std::string, size_t> ha;
    const size_t *              val;

    // HArray<std::string, size_t> ha(10); // Initialize with the capacity of 10
    // ha.SetCapacity(10); // Same, but after initialization

    ha["a"]  = 1;
    ha["b"]  = 2;
    ha["c"]  = 30;
    ha["c"]  = 3; // Reset "c" to value of "3";
    ha["dd"] = 4;
    ha["e"]  = 5;
    ha["z"]  = 50;
    ha.Rename("dd", "d"); // Will rename "dd" to "d".

    std::cout << ha["a"] << '\n'; // Output: 1
    std::cout << ha["c"] << '\n'; // Output: 3

    std::cout << "\nSize: " << ha.Size() << "\nValues: "; // Output: 6

    for (size_t i = 0; i < ha.ArraySize(); i++) {
        val = ha.GetValue(i);

        if (val != nullptr) {
            std::cout << (*val) << ' '; // Output: 1 2 3 4 5 50
        }
    }

    std::cout << "\n\n";

    val = ha.Find("z");

    if (val != nullptr) {
        std::cout << "The value of \"z\" is: " << (*val); // Output: 50
    }

    std::cout << "\n\nKeys: ";

    for (size_t i = 0; i < ha.ArraySize(); i++) {
        const std::string *key = ha.GetKey(i);

        if (key != nullptr) {
            std::cout << *key << ' '; // Output: a b c d e z
        }
    }

    ha.Delete("z");
    std::cout << "\n\nSize: " << ha.Size() << '\n';     // Output: 5
    std::cout << "Index: " << ha.ArraySize() << '\n';   // Output: 6
    std::cout << "Capacity: " << ha.Capacity() << '\n'; // Output: 8

    ha.Compress(); // Will remove extra storage and/or remove any deleted items
    std::cout << "\nSize: " << ha.Size() << '\n';       // Output: 5
    std::cout << "Index: " << ha.ArraySize() << '\n';   // Output: 5
    std::cout << "Capacity: " << ha.Capacity() << '\n'; // Output: 5

    ha.Delete("d");

    /* The next line will resize it to 4 if 4 is bigger than the number of
     * items, and will remove any deleted items.
     *
     * If 4 is not bigger, the capacity will be set to 4.
     */
    ha.Resize(4);
    std::cout << "\nSize: " << ha.Size() << '\n';         // Output: 3
    std::cout << "Capacity: " << ha.Capacity() << "\n\n"; // Output: 4

    for (size_t i = 0; i < ha.ArraySize(); i++) {
        val = ha.GetValue(i);

        if (val != nullptr) {
            std::cout << (*val) << ' '; // Output: 1 2 3
        }
    }

    std::cout << "\n\n";

    ha["d"] = 4; // Add "d" again

    HArray<std::string, size_t> ha2;

    ha2["b"] = 10;
    ha2["d"] = 30;
    ha2["w"] = 220;
    ha2["z"] = 440;

    HArray<std::string, size_t> ha3 = ha; // Copy ha to ha3

    /* Add ha2's items to ha if they do not exist, and/or replace the ones that
     * exist.
     */
    ha += ha2;

    using my_item_T = Qentem::HAItem<std::string, size_t>;

    for (size_t i = 0; i < ha.ArraySize(); i++) {
        const my_item_T *item = ha.GetItem(i);

        if (item != nullptr) {
            std::cout << item->Key << ": " << item->Value << ". ";
            //  Will output: a: 1. b: 10. c: 3. d: 30. w: 220. z: 440.
        }
    }

    std::cout << "\n\n";

    ha2 += ha3; // Add ha3's items to ha2

    for (size_t i = 0; i < ha2.ArraySize(); i++) {
        const my_item_T *item = ha2.GetItem(i);

        if (item != nullptr) {
            std::cout << item->Key << ": " << item->Value << ". ";
            //  Will output: b: 2. d: 4. w: 220. z: 440. a: 1. c: 3.
        }
    }

    std::cout << '\n';

    ha.Clear(); // Will remove any existing items and set it to zero.

    return 0;
}

History

  • 30th July, 2020: Initial version
  • 3rd August 2020: Added improved implementation
  • 6th August, 2020: Added improved lookup
  • 10th August, 2020: Added example

License

This article, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The MIT License

Share

About the Author


Comments and Discussions

 
GeneralMy vote of 5 Pin
Matth Moestl6-Aug-20 12:35
professionalMatth Moestl6-Aug-20 12:35 
GeneralRe: My vote of 5 Pin
User 148693606-Aug-20 13:19
MemberUser 148693606-Aug-20 13:19 
Questionstd::unordered_map Pin
Sergeant Kolja2-Aug-20 0:26
professionalSergeant Kolja2-Aug-20 0:26 
AnswerRe: std::unordered_map Pin
User 148693602-Aug-20 2:53
MemberUser 148693602-Aug-20 2:53 
GeneralRe: std::unordered_map Pin
Sergeant Kolja3-Aug-20 0:13
professionalSergeant Kolja3-Aug-20 0:13 
GeneralRe: std::unordered_map Pin
User 148693603-Aug-20 7:03
MemberUser 148693603-Aug-20 7:03 
QuestionAbout the Delete function Pin
wmjordan31-Jul-20 21:52
professionalwmjordan31-Jul-20 21:52 
AnswerRe: About the Delete function Pin
User 148693601-Aug-20 5:01
MemberUser 148693601-Aug-20 5:01 
GeneralRe: About the Delete function Pin
wmjordan19-Aug-20 16:51
professionalwmjordan19-Aug-20 16:51 
AnswerRe: About the Delete function Pin
User 1486936021-Aug-20 16:28
MemberUser 1486936021-Aug-20 16:28 
Hello wmjordan,

I'm glad that you like the new implementation Smile | :)

You are right, I was being lazy and did not implement an API for getting the number of items that are not deleted. I said lazy because I really do not need it in my library that I use this for, and I should have done better. Sorry.

For the hash function, I have moved all calls to a single function, where I could replace std::hash with my hashing function - because I do not use the slandered library in my library, and mine never returns 0 unless the char *str is null.

To fix the hashing function returning zero, a single if statement should be added to replace any zero with one, I'm not sure yet about the impact on the performance, but I think It will be alright. But for the API, it might take a bit of work to ensure everything is working correctly.

Check back in a few days or keep an eye on the repo: HArray[^].

Thank you for your feedback

modified 27-Sep-20 21:01pm.

QuestionMessage Closed Pin
29-Jul-20 23:53
MemberApps Fountain29-Jul-20 23:53 

General General    News News    Suggestion Suggestion    Question Question    Bug Bug    Answer Answer    Joke Joke    Praise Praise    Rant Rant    Admin Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.