<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hashtables, Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://webkit.org/blog/8/hashtables-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://webkit.org/blog/8/hashtables-part-2/</link>
	<description>All about WebKit development</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: iSee</title>
		<link>http://webkit.org/blog/8/hashtables-part-2/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>iSee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=8#comment-41</guid>
		<description>And in addition to what I replied last time, if you are not sure you will get low collision rates with your hash tables, consider judy arrays (if their LGPL licence is acceptable to you) or another efficient implementation of tries (Check Wikipedia if you don't know what this is). They yield the same best case complexity without the risk of degrading really bad with collisions and deletes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And in addition to what I replied last time, if you are not sure you will get low collision rates with your hash tables, consider judy arrays (if their LGPL licence is acceptable to you) or another efficient implementation of tries (Check Wikipedia if you don&#8217;t know what this is). They yield the same best case complexity without the risk of degrading really bad with collisions and deletes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
