Re: Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)

On 4/12/05, Petr Baudis <[email protected]> wrote:

> (iv) You fail to propose a better solution.

I would feel safer with back end storage filenames based on email and
mtime together with an optional hash lookup that turns collisions into
worse performance. But that's just me.

/ magnus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)
  - From: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>

References:
- Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)
  - From: [email protected] (Pedro Larroy)
- Re: Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)
  - From: Petr Baudis <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
Next by Date: RE: [PATCH] Priority Lists for the RT mutex
Previous by thread: Re: Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)
Next by thread: Re: Call to atention about using hash functions as content indexers (SCM saga)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]