search for: sfh

...-) First, the main thing: SuperFastHash appears to be the hash with best distribution. Use of MurmurHash instead generates 1.28% more collisions while doing nightly test in MultiSource/Applications. Second: I've also tested lookup3 hash, and its use generated 0.1% more collisions, compared to SFH. These results were a bit surprising for me! Number of hash table resizes is independent of used hashing algorithm, because hash table grows when 'nentries > nbuckets * 2'. Gregory

...: SuperFastHash appears to be the hash with best > distribution. Use of MurmurHash instead generates 1.28% more collisions while > doing nightly test in MultiSource/Applications. > > Second: I've also tested lookup3 hash, and its use generated 0.1% more > collisions, compared to SFH. > > These results were a bit surprising for me! > > Number of hash table resizes is independent of used hashing algorithm, because > hash table grows when 'nentries > nbuckets * 2'. Thanks for doing the evaluation! It sounds like we should stay with SFH. In addition...

i would like to use an ldap backend in place of my existing smbpasswd backend because i just can't get unix password synchronization to work. Any suggestions on how i can make this smooth migration ?

On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks >> promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that >> cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted >> for in a micro-benchmark don't

On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks > promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that > cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted > for in a micro-benchmark don't dominate performance? Specifically the > nightly tester includes a number

...ccrat=9818.65, tlook =tlook, tcut0 =t0, h0=h0, tcut1=t0, rhaz=rhaz, tcutc0=t0, hc0=hc, tcutc1=t0, hc1=hc, tcutd0B =c(0, 13), hd0B =c(0.04777, 0), tcutd1B =0:6, hd1B =hd1B, noncompliance =crossover, gradual =TRUE, WtFun =c("FH", "SFH", "Ramp"), ppar =c(0, 1, 0, 1, 10, 10)) ## we will construct a variety of alternate hypotheses relative to the ## base case specified above max.effect <- 0.80 + 0.05*(0:8) n.me <- length(max.effect) ## we will also vary extent of censori...

...ccrat=9818.65, tlook =tlook, tcut0 =t0, h0=h0, tcut1=t0, rhaz=rhaz, tcutc0=t0, hc0=hc, tcutc1=t0, hc1=hc, tcutd0B =c(0, 13), hd0B =c(0.04777, 0), tcutd1B =0:6, hd1B =hd1B, noncompliance =crossover, gradual =TRUE, WtFun =c("FH", "SFH", "Ramp"), ppar =c(0, 1, 0, 1, 10, 10)) ## we will construct a variety of alternate hypotheses relative to the ## base case specified above max.effect <- 0.80 + 0.05*(0:8) n.me <- length(max.effect) ## we will also vary extent of censori...

...|eh7*Y%9mzYU;=U{7v6PV=F;VZ*>3d=pmoxId$X&^zSs#emU(Lwg z821q!JDze<Pte8}^bgUKt6<%uqxlE~aes<|exrW^p0D-qW3^0+wJ|dmoyYV~!8xCO z2C*$<Hu-aiZxQ<fH7#IE8HT8AVVPgD4C6ue6;qtBs9&T1xvAPWOmQ at U70zPY*>_^R zY1+3eQ{TqE$GDLA0kgT4{RkD!P1k;6iUHcsLQx)O<UGrAJivYt>V at t02WY{4(GHwv znf!isfhjI=4ZxJgnX-o|&#~xWKfpvj&l-4!evEyD1$301U<x$k6Q+E|lnacF;t=oz zos8xXC|t}j9D?2x8~Ip{WdlER97p?OMLJsdcv0j at CW=r|WV9%XDklEVEK|8MlPgPj zw3!uLwWAYwhPINg;mQV%suV)p?m|l1QsMI$R3TT9RH~>IWH42<=LxxtD)b~FQ&dXy zmk3Ft3j2|e8BkTeQ6)K4aXg}u?Sv}EV=CDSvh!(`tU=oKoJ#g1?S5G$k0PD&hDx47 zI`tiuJcBR|T...