Hi Thomas Graf,

Thanks :-)


On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:52:40 +0200, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> wrote:

> * Wang Jian <20050407212340.02D2.LARK@linux.net.cn> 2005-04-07 21:31
> > Would you please test this case?
> > 
> > (0..1024) << 16
> > 
> > The old hash gives a 1024 depth bucket for this case.
> > 
> > And I am not sure if there is a bad range (0..n) << s which is mapped
> > into one bucket.
> 
> old hash (enum shift):
> empty buckets: 255 average chain length: 1024.000 min: 0 max: 1024
> 
> new hash (enum shift):
> empty buckets: 0 average chain length: 1.000 min: 1 max: 1



-- 
  lark