Skip to content

hash map #12678

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

hash map #12678

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

isidroas
Copy link
Contributor

  • Mutable _Item
  • document falsy item
  • resize_down: expected test result
  • resize_down: actual result

Please refer to the commit messages for a detailed breakdown of the changes.

Feedback from the original author, @Cjkjvfnby, would be greatly appreciated!

Describe your change:

  • Add an algorithm?
  • Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
  • Add or change doctests? -- Note: Please avoid changing both code and tests in a single pull request.
  • Documentation change?

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
  • I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
  • This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
  • All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
  • All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
  • All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
  • All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
  • All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
  • All new algorithms include at least one URL that points to Wikipedia or another similar explanation.
  • If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the description above includes the issue number(s) with a closing keyword: "Fixes #ISSUE-NUMBER".

Copy link
Contributor

@Cjkjvfnby Cjkjvfnby left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for improving it.

Changes look good, I left some cosmetic comments.

As for making _Item mutable, Immutability gives extra protection in exchange for performance. In this abstract case, I don't have any strong preference, both versions are fine.

# Test resize down when sparse
## Setup: resize up
>>> hm = HashMap(100, capacity_factor=0.75)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we go with size 4? In that case, we could avoid the loop.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Something like this?

# Test resize down when sparse
## Setup: resize up
>>> hm = HashMap(4, capacity_factor=0.75)
>>> len(hm._buckets)
4
>>> hm[0] = 0
>>> hm[1] = 1
>>> hm[2] = 2
>>> len(hm._buckets)
4
>>> hm[3] = 3
>>> len(hm._buckets)
8

## Resize down
>>> del hm[3]
>>> len(hm._buckets)
8
>>> del hm[2]
>>> len(hm._buckets)
4

I've checked that it passes, but I don't know which one I prefer

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd prefer to keep tests as linear as possible.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's wait for the 3d opinion.

@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper bot added the tests are failing Do not merge until tests pass label Apr 24, 2025
@isidroas
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for improving it.

Changes look good, I left some cosmetic comments.

Thank you for the revision!

As for making _Item mutable, Immutability gives extra protection in exchange for performance. In this abstract case, I don't have any strong preference, both versions are fine.

I understand that the immutable version is faster. That said, performance will be limited in Python either way

@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper bot added the awaiting reviews This PR is ready to be reviewed label Apr 24, 2025
@Cjkjvfnby
Copy link
Contributor

Changes look good. I'll not be active for the next 2 weeks, please don't wait for me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting reviews This PR is ready to be reviewed tests are failing Do not merge until tests pass
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants