1
Fork 0
turbonss/GPERF.t2t

40 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

2005-01-27 02:04:11 +02:00
GPERF versus CMPH
2005-01-31 20:50:58 +02:00
%!includeconf: CONFIG.t2t
2005-01-27 02:04:11 +02:00
You might ask why cmph if [gperf http://www.gnu.org/software/gperf/gperf.html]
already works perfectly. Actually, gperf and cmph have different goals.
Basically, these are the requirements for each of them:
- GPERF
- Create very fast hash functions for **small** sets
- Create **perfect** hash functions
- CMPH
- Create very fast hash function for **very large** sets
- Create **minimal perfect** hash functions
As result, cmph can be used to create hash functions where gperf would run
forever without finding a perfect hash function, because of the running
time of the algorithm and the large memory usage.
On the other side, functions created by cmph are about 2x slower than those
created by gperf.
So, if you have large sets, or memory usage is a key restriction for you, stick
to cmph. If you have small sets, and do not care about memory usage, go with
gperf. The first problem is common in the information retrieval field (e.g.
assigning ids to millions of documents), while the former is usually found in
the compiler programming area (detect reserved keywords).
----------------------------------------
2005-01-31 20:50:58 +02:00
| [Home index.html] | [CHM chm.html] | [BMZ bmz.html]
2005-01-27 02:04:11 +02:00
----------------------------------------
2005-01-27 18:21:49 +02:00
%!include: FOOTER.t2t