> On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 11:06:39PM -0700, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
> > However, on the subject of hash table sizes, it is not difficult to allow the
> > hash table to dynamically increase in size.  This does not impose significant
> > overhead; you can simply count the length of the hash buckets as you traverse
> > them, and trigger a dynamic resize when some threshhold is exceeded.
> > 
> > There would be some issues in doing so, such as memory fragmentation, but it
> > can be done.
> 
> Would an extensible hashing scheme work well here.  That is, one where
> you hash into a small set of buckets initially, and then split only the 
> full buckets as they fill up?
> 
> I've seen a number of papers on it, some dating back to the '70s.

I've hung papers on a nail....