Comments on: Comparison of Hash Table Libraries

By: Mahmoud Al-Qudsi

Mahmoud Al-Qudsi — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:27:15 +0000

Thanks for this wonderful write-up. Just want to point out that Google dense and Google sparse now have read/write from disk support for basic datatypes.

By: maliy

maliy — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:32:05 +0000

Thank you for your time… Very good article.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:55:52 +0000

Hi, thanks for doing the benchmarking work.

I’m wondering — do you know of any C implementations that will work on Windows, using Visual Studio? I tried using your code with this environment but I get a lot of compile errors related to Unix-specific functions.

By: spenser

spenser — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:57:14 +0000

Congratulations on an excellent article.

It brings together a lot of information in a clear and readable fashion. It was a pleasure to read after all those hundred of pages preceding yours in the last 3 years or so.

By: Tagz | "Comparison of Hash Table Libraries « Attractive Chaos" | Comments

Sat, 16 May 2009 17:08:37 +0000

[...] [upmod] [downmod] Comparison of Hash Table Libraries « Attractive Chaos (attractivechaos.wordpress.com) 1 points posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago by jeethu tags [...]

By: pm100

pm100 — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:34:00 +0000

Hi,

Thanks a lot for your compasirions, very good resource.
I was wondering if you have any idea / info how the intel libraries compare to the ones you have covered.
http://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/files/documentation/a00086.html

Thanks…

By: attractivechaos

attractivechaos — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:25:38 +0000

@Andreas

I have tested QT4 and boost. QT4’s QHash is marginally faster than SGI’s hash_map but costs more memory. Boost’s unordered_map is slightly slower than hash_map with almost the same memory footprint.

By: RDESTL: hash_map, another take | .mischief.mayhem.soap.

RDESTL: hash_map, another take | .mischief.mayhem.soap. — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:53:07 +0000

[...] Comparison of Hash Table Libraries – comparison of 12 different hash table implementations (performance/memory consumption). [...]

By: attractivechaos

attractivechaos — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:07:35 +0000

I would recommend to check this updated page:

http://attractivechaos.awardspace.com/udb.html

Source code for can be downloaded here:

http://attractivechaos.awardspace.com/download/udb-20080928.tar.bz2

In this new benchmark, I have removed glib and ghthash as they need installation while all the other libraries do not. If you are still interested in these two libraries, please check here:

http://www.freewebs.com/attractivechaos/hash_test.cc.html

for the source code. This file is a bit disorganized and not easy to compile.

By: leonardo

leonardo — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:09:42 +0000

Very nice comparison. Where can I find the benchmark code you have used to test the hash libs?