> There is simply no modern use case for non-power-of-two hash tables. Even in open addressing.There is simply no modern use case for non-power-of-two hash tabl

> There is simply no modern use case for non-power-of-two hash tables. Even in open addressing.There is simply no modern use case for non-power-of-two hash tables. I think I'd much rather a hash table that needs 32.1 GB actually take 32.1 GB and not 64 GB especially when I need several of them, thank you very much! With the extra memory saved and the TLB/cache footprint reduced I can get a lot of performance to offset the minuscule latency difference between a widening multiply and a logical and! In a recent data structure I've worked on, using an algebraic code requiring a couple bisection searches in a couple tiny tables to decode-- to just reduce table entries by 4 bits measurably improved performance, simply from reducing the cache/tlb footprint a few percent. As computers have become faster multiplies and adds have become increasingly free relative to memory latency/bandwidth.