Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Good hash for pointers
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 00:54:34 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 141
Message-ID:
References:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 01:54:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a9f17f030c74c0000dda6058d5c2eb70";
logging-data="2686274"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/E7wjSD5+ElEh7Li8qmOer"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Wek4szSBlB7kC0TdK7nIFLLhw0=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To:
Bytes: 4740
On 24/05/2024 19:57, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On 24/05/2024 19:28, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 23.05.2024 um 13:11 schrieb Malcolm McLean:
>>>
>>> What is a good hash function for pointers to use in portable ANSI C?
>>>
>>> The pointers are nodes of a tree, which are read only, and I want to
>>> associate read/write data with them. So potentially a lage number of
>>> pointers,and they might be consecutively ordered if they are taken
>>> from an array, or they might be returned from repeared calls to
>>> malloc() with small allocations. Obviously I have no control over
>>> pointer size or internal representation.
>>>
>>
>> Use FNV.
>>
>
> Here's an attempt.
>
> /* FNV hash of a pointer */
> static unsigned int hash(void *address)
> {
> int i;
> unsigned long answer = 2166136261;
> unsigned char *byte = (unsigned char *) &address;
>
> for (i = 0; i < sizeof(void *); i++)
> {
> answer *= 16777619;
> answer ^= byte[i];
> }
> return (unsigned int) (answer & 0xFFFFFFFF);
> }
>
> Now what will compilers make of that?
Compiler, or performance?
I tried this function with the test program shown below. I used it to
populate a hash table of 64K entries with pointers from successive calls
to malloc.
Results, in terms of clashes, for different numbers N of entries
populated out of 64K were:
10000 1100
30000 12000
50000 67000
60000 216000
65535 5500000 (largest N possible)
Result were rather variable as malloc produces different patterns of
pointers on different runs. These were simply the result from the first run.
Was this good? I'd no idea. But as a comparison, I used my own hash
function, normally used to hash identifiers, shown below the main
program as the function 'bchash'.
If this is subsituted instead, the results were:
10000 230
30000 3800
50000 10300
60000 50300
65535 2700000
Hash tables need a certain amount of free capacity to stay efficient, so
3/4 full (about 50K/64K) is about right.
Again I don't know if these figures are good, they are just better than
from your hash() function, for the inputs I used, within this test, and
for this size of table.
No doubt there are much better ones.
------------------------------------------
#include
#include
static unsigned int hash(void *address)
{
int i;
unsigned long answer = 2166136261;
unsigned char *byte = (unsigned char *) &address;
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(void *); i++)
{
answer *= 16777619;
answer ^= byte[i];
}
return (unsigned int) (answer & 0xFFFFFFFF);
}
void* table[65536];
int main(void) {
void* p;
int clashes=0, wrapped;
int j;
for (int i=0; i<30000; ++i) {
p = malloc(1);
j = hash(p) & 65535;
wrapped=0;
while (table[j]) {
++clashes;
++j;
if (j>65535) {
if (wrapped) { puts("Table full"); exit(1);}
wrapped=1;
j=0;
}
}
table[j] = p;
}
printf("Clashes %d\n", clashes);
}
------------------------------------------
static unsigned int bchash(void *address)
{
int i;
unsigned long hsum = 0;
unsigned char *byte = (unsigned char *) &address;
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(void *); i++) {
hsum = (hsum<<4) - hsum + byte[i];
}
return (hsum<<5) - hsum;
}