in reply to Re^2: "Just use a hash": An overworked mantra?

in thread "Just use a hash": An overworked mantra?

first, the third link you've pointed reads:
*
Thus—formally—hash tables often run in time O(log n). *

next, if the question is "is it possible to create an algorithm that, given arbitrary strings of finite length, make associative store/lookup for O(1)" - then the answer is "yes" but these are non-realistic algorithms.

but - back to reality - real-life alhorithms are O(log N) in best case, but I afraid Perl's one is worse than that

and - yet - have you ever heard of so-called "hash complexity attack" that was security-fixed by seed randomization in 5.8.0?

To inform you, pre-5.8.0 were looking like O(1) but actually were O(n) (or maybe even worse in worst case scenario)

next, your "stackoverflow.com" link contains simply wrong information.

IOW, I do not see any proof there that convinces me.

And - your last link does not even mention hashes.

Bother explain what is doing here? TIA!

and finally, do you see something strange in your phrase *hash operations are O(1) operations, where 'n' is the number of elements in the hash*
?

I could be a bit joking, but I do not trust phrases like that.

you're explaining parameter 'n' that is not presents in your formulae - what other mistakes/typos have you made?

:)