You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hash tables are an excellent data structure for amortized constant time operations. But, calculating the hash is not actually O(1). It's more like O(h), where h is the length of the hashed key.
With a ternary search tree, it's possible to get similar results to those obtained from a Hash Table without the need of resizing the table, or having extra unused entries as with the hash table.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yeah, it sounds good. We already have two different tables with different time/space properties, so I don't see why we shouldn't add another. More tools in the toolbox.
Hash tables are an excellent data structure for amortized constant time operations. But, calculating the hash is not actually O(1). It's more like O(h), where h is the length of the hashed key.
With a ternary search tree, it's possible to get similar results to those obtained from a Hash Table without the need of resizing the table, or having extra unused entries as with the hash table.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: