Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I don’t understand this explanation which says if n is the number of elements in the hash table and m is the total number of buckets then hashtables have constant access time in average only if n is proportional to theta(n). Why does it have to be proportional ?
well actually m should be proportional to n. Otherwise you could, for example, have just 1 bucket and it would be just like an unsorted set.
To be more precise, if m is proportional to n, i.e. m = c * n, then the number of items in each bucket will be n/m = 1/c which is a constant. Going to any bucket is an O(1) operation (just compute the hash code) and then the search through the bucket is constant order (you could just do a linear search through the items in the bucket which would be a constant).
Thus the order of the algorithm is O(1), if m = c * n.
To take a converse example, suppose we had a fixed size table of size tableSize. Then the expected number of items in each bucket is n/tableSize which is a linear function of n. Any kind of search through the bucket is at best O(log(n)) for a tree (I’m assuming you don’t stick another hash table inside the bucket or we then have the same argument over that hash table), so it would not be O(1) in this case.