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.
Possible Duplicate:
Chained Hash Tables vs. Open-Addressed Hash Tables
In general I have seen two implementations of hash tables. The first is implemented as two arrays, one containing the keys, the other the values. The second has a single array, and then a linked list containing key-value objects.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of one implementation over the other? Both look equally good to me with regard to collision handling and put/get operations.
As johna says, we call The first example open addressing, while the latter is chaining.
The main drawback of open addressing is that by using your hashtable array for storing values, if many collisions occur, you will overflow the bucket array, and then have an expensive resizing. Also, this data structure is a little unclear.
With chaining, or pointers to linked lists, you will never overflow the array, though the linked lists could grow deep. This; however, is a consistent and predictable flow of data, and an easier concept.