[Python-checkins] cpython (merge 3.5 -> default): Merge: #20647: Update dictobject.c comments to account for randomized string
r.david.murray
python-checkins at python.org
Sun Jul 10 12:48:08 EDT 2016
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/31cdf23da19d
changeset: 102299:31cdf23da19d
parent: 102297:41dfd92f48f0
parent: 102298:74109d87283f
user: R David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com>
date: Sun Jul 10 12:40:03 2016 -0400
summary:
Merge: #20647: Update dictobject.c comments to account for randomized string hashes.
files:
Objects/dictobject.c | 13 +++++--------
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Objects/dictobject.c b/Objects/dictobject.c
--- a/Objects/dictobject.c
+++ b/Objects/dictobject.c
@@ -88,20 +88,17 @@
/*
Major subtleties ahead: Most hash schemes depend on having a "good" hash
function, in the sense of simulating randomness. Python doesn't: its most
-important hash functions (for strings and ints) are very regular in common
+important hash functions (for ints) are very regular in common
cases:
- >>> map(hash, (0, 1, 2, 3))
+ >>>[hash(i) for i in range(4)]
[0, 1, 2, 3]
- >>> map(hash, ("namea", "nameb", "namec", "named"))
- [-1658398457, -1658398460, -1658398459, -1658398462]
- >>>
This isn't necessarily bad! To the contrary, in a table of size 2**i, taking
the low-order i bits as the initial table index is extremely fast, and there
-are no collisions at all for dicts indexed by a contiguous range of ints.
-The same is approximately true when keys are "consecutive" strings. So this
-gives better-than-random behavior in common cases, and that's very desirable.
+are no collisions at all for dicts indexed by a contiguous range of ints. So
+this gives better-than-random behavior in common cases, and that's very
+desirable.
OTOH, when collisions occur, the tendency to fill contiguous slices of the
hash table makes a good collision resolution strategy crucial. Taking only
--
Repository URL: https://hg.python.org/cpython
More information about the Python-checkins
mailing list