Re: hash_table vs unordered_map

On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Alex Rousskov
<rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 08/24/2013 10:01 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm looking into some refactoring activity while I'm waiting for
>> some merge reviews to be completed, and by idly browsing the code I
>> crossed paths with hash_table.
>>
>> I was about to code a c++ templatized wrapper, but then I started
>> wondering what is the advantage of hash_table versus
>> std::unordered_map?
>
> hash_table does not require C++11 support in the compiler and, at least
> in theory, does not have unknown compatibility problems with Squid code
> (such as frequently hitting worst-case search or update scenarios).
>
> On the other hand, hash_table does not work well with C++ objects.

>> Would it be useful to refactor from one to the other while waiting
>> such as now?
>
> Do all compilers we care about support std::unordered_map?

Checked; unfortunately it's not enough supported yet. It's a pity.

> If yes, switching to a standard, C++-friendly class would be useful.
> However, there are other, more useful projects available if you are
> looking for something fun to do (and new code can use std::unordered_map
> if you declare it supported).

I'm looking for things which are limited in scope - after all, it's
just filling in the gaps while waiting for input (e.g. on StringNG);
in other words, I'd like to limit these activities to refactoring. If
there is any which you think should be done, let me know :)

Thanks!

-- 
    /kinkie