Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] proto_filter_names hash collision
From: "ronnie sahlberg" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:46:03 +1100
or rather a pe-tree

On Nov 21, 2007 9:45 AM, ronnie sahlberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Instead of creating a hash and store it in a hashtable
> wouldnt it be better/faster to just store the names as the strings as
> is in a se-tree instead.
> That should be much faster.
>
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2007 8:13 AM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Kukosa, Tomas wrote:
> > > It seems that we have reached critical number of protocols.
> > > I have met collision of built in "p7" protoco with my private "nu"
> > > protocol. They both have the same g_str_hash() value.
> > >
> > > Does it make sence to create hash from the protocol filter name
> > > which has usually 2-4 characters?
> > >
> > > BTW the g_str_hash() for full protocol name takes quite much time during
> > > startup. Does it make sence to check full protocol name duplicity? Is
> > > not it enough to check short name and filter name duplicity?
> >
> > Does it make sense to do all those sanity checks only if a special
> > command-line flag is supplied to TShark, so that the checks are done as
> > part of the build process, rather than being done every time you run
> > Wireshark or TShark?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> >
>