[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [computer-go] Re: Sharing Secrets

----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicol N. Schraudolph" <compgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I hate to fall so neatly into this pattern of incredulity-then-ridicule
that you perceive here, but I don't think I've ever implemented a hash
table where I stored the address part of hash keys,
That would indeed be a terribly stupid idea. I am a bit ashamed that you choose to interpret my ideas consequently the other way around. I feel harrased by it.
Perhaps it's because English is not my native language or because English is not your native language, but on the contrary, I REMOVED the need to store 20 bits per 64-bit key, thereby freeing up 30% of the RAM needed for other purposes.

This is not rocket science, the positional information (location in RAM) becomes the implicit 20 LSB of the hash. It's just a trick to save 30% memory.


care about memory footprint.  It didn't occur to me that something that
obvious could be your "big secret".
It didn't occur to me that someone with an academic reputation would intentionally continue to "misunderstand" something that is now clear to all.

By using the first 20 bits as a first-level tree index, you effectively free up 30% of the RAM needed to store the hash database. How this is "A stupid way to use up a lot more RAM than needed" I leave for you to explain.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/