3 ms·

Their graphs include "Cuckoo++" and "Cuckoo++ w/ timers". From their GitHub repo[1] it looks like the timer feature isn't built-in by default: BLOOM is just Cu

• scaramanga 6y ago
  You can see that when TIMER macro is undefined in that benchmark code then no timer management is performed at all. What's shown in the paper that bucketized cukoo + bloom compares well to he other hash tables they looked at (DPDK is probably a bit of a red-herring since it supports, and is optimized for, concurrent operations - but that's by the by). And here, a comparison with a fast robin-hood-ish hash like swiss or bytell would be interesting. But also in the same benchmarks, cuckoo++ with timers is being compared directly against benchmark runs where no timer management is performed at all. The results show that it to be comparable. So presumably, when compared against traditional timer management like heaps/wheels it would be significantly ahead. But the explicit comparison hasn't been done anywhere as far as I know. That's more what I was getting at in previous comments. Of course, you can look at it the other way around and you can rip out the timer stuff and compare bucketized cuckoo + bloom as just a hash table in its own right too. The other comparison might also be interesting, can you do similar timer stuff with a robin-hood hash? You'd probably have to give up the SIMD, or come up with a new scheme to make SIMD usable, since that's what bucketized cuckoo enables you to do easily and that robin hood doesn't. Edit: thanks for the correction btw!