Solved

Posted on 2006-11-17
Medium Priority
746 Views
I'm trying to implement quadratic probing to resolve hash table collisions.  Usually I use a linked-list method, but I want to try out quadratic probing.

My basic "get" function uses a loop like:

for (unsigned n = 1; table_space[idx] != EMPTY; ++n) {
if (memcmp( table_space[idx].key, key, strlen(key)) == 0)
return table_space[idx].value;
idx += ( (n+1)*(n+1) ) - (n*n);
if (idx >= Capacity) idx %= Capacity;
}

I'm not sure if I'm implementing the quadratic function properly.  If the idx value exceeds the capacity of the table, I reset it to the beginning of the table with a modulo/assignment.  However, I've seen some implementations which use the hash value itself for the quadratic function, rather than the table index.  Is there any difference, and is the above implementation adequate?
0
Question by:chsalvia
[X]
###### Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

• Help others & share knowledge
• Earn cash & points
• 3
• 2
• 2

LVL 46

Expert Comment

ID: 17965032

Hi chsalvia,

I'm assuming that idx is initialized prior to the for(;;) statement?

For my money, I like the linked-list approach for dealing with overflow.  It's easier to implement and means that a slightly less than optimal hash algorithm still works reasonably well.

What you're attempting requires a dead-on algorithm or quite a bit of extra space as an overflow record is moved to another location in the primary pages, often resulting in the misplacement of additional data.

Kent
0

Author Comment

ID: 17965373
>>I'm assuming that idx is initialized prior to the for(;;) statement?

Yes.

>>For my money, I like the linked-list approach for dealing with overflow.  It's easier to implement and means that a slightly less >>than optimal hash algorithm still works reasonably well.

I think so too.  It also lets you fill up the table without too much performance degradation.

I've been experimenting with ways to get fast hash table performance with minimal memory allocation and the option for variable length records.  In C++, hash tables usually allocate new objects on every insert, which involves a lot of sporadic memory allocation.  An object is allocated to the heap, then its constructor is called, and maybe the object allocates some storage for some internal variables as well.

With C, I was thinking I could get a pretty fast hash table which would allow variable length records, by doing something like this:  Making a table that is just an array of integers.  Each integer would store the offset of a record stored in a larger heap space.  The problem is that this requires two resize operations - one for the table, and one for the storage heap.

But I thought it would be a nice way to store variable length strings, or any kind of data, and be able to have a hash index to look it up quickly.  Plus, barring the resize, there would be no memory allocation on inserts - just a quick assignment to the proper index, and a memcpy for the storage heap.

I was looking into quadratic probing because if I used a linked-list, the hash table would need to be more than just a simple array of integers - it would need to be an array of integers and next pointers.
0

LVL 46

Accepted Solution

Kent Olsen earned 800 total points
ID: 17965538

>> if I used a linked-list, the hash table would need to be more than just a simple array of integers

All kinds of hybrid solutions are out there.

typedef struct
{
char Key[20];   // or whatever
int    Offset;     // Index into the list
} key_t;

typedef struct
{
char Key[10];
//  rest of data
} mystruct_t;

typedef struct
{
key_t   key[20];
page_t *overflow;
} page_t;

Use the definitions above to manage the keys, then keep the actual data as separate structs.  The hash table winds up being relatively small with very fast access to keys and/or data.

Kent
0

LVL 84

Assisted Solution

ozo earned 200 total points
ID: 17968894
idx += ( (n+1)*(n+1) ) - (n*n);
That seems strange way to write
idx += 2*n + 1;
0

LVL 46

Expert Comment

ID: 17970066
Hi ozo,

Yeah, and

if (idx >= Capacity) idx %= Capacity

is probably better written as

idx %= Capacity;

But the logic seems to be the initial issue.
Kent
0

LVL 84

Expert Comment

ID: 17970122
If the table is full, you will loop forever
0

Author Comment

ID: 17970622
>>idx += ( (n+1)*(n+1) ) - (n*n);
>>That seems strange way to write
>>idx += 2*n + 1;

Yes - that's a lot simpler.

>> If the table is full, you will loop forever

There is a resize function that is triggered when the number of records reaches a certain load factor.

>>Yeah, and
>>   if (idx >= Capacity) idx %= Capacity
>>is probably better written as
>>  idx %= Capacity;

Yeah - the if statement is redundant there.  I suppose the whole thing could be expressed in one line like:

idx = (idx + 2*n + 1) % Capacity;
0

## Featured Post

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Summary: This tutorial covers some basics of pointer, pointer arithmetic and function pointer. What is a pointer: A pointer is a variable which holds an address.Ā This address might be address of another variable/address of devices/address of fuā¦
Examines three attack vectors, specifically, the different types of malware used in malicious attacks, web application attacks, and finally, network based attacks.  Concludes by examining the means of securing and protecting critical systems and infā¦
The goal of this video is to provide viewers with basic examples to understand opening and writing to files in the C programming language.
The goal of this video is to provide viewers with basic examples to understand opening and reading files in the C programming language.
###### Suggested Courses
Course of the Month10 days, 21 hours left to enroll