38 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
38 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
GPERF versus CMPH
|
|
|
|
|
|
%!includeconf: CONFIG.t2t
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
%!include: ALGORITHMS.t2t
|
|
|
|
%!include: FOOTER.t2t
|