Implementation Rationale

The intent of this library is to implement the unordered containers in the draft standard, so the interface was fixed. But there are still some implementation decisions to make. The priorities are conformance to the standard and portability.

The Wikipedia article on hash tables has a good summary of the implementation issues for hash tables in general.

Data Structure

By specifying an interface for accessing the buckets of the container the standard pretty much requires that the hash table uses chained addressing.

It would be conceivable to write a hash table that uses another method. For example, it could use open addressing, and use the lookup chain to act as a bucket but there are some serious problems with this:

The draft standard requires that pointers to elements aren't invalidated, so the elements can't be stored in one array, but will need a layer of indirection instead - losing the efficiency and most of the memory gain, the main advantages of open addressing.
Local iterators would be very inefficient and may not be able to meet the complexity requirements.
There are also the restrictions on when iterators can be invalidated. Since open addressing degrades badly when there are a high number of collisions the restrictions could prevent a rehash when it's really needed. The maximum load factor could be set to a fairly low value to work around this - but the standard requires that it is initially set to 1.0.
And since the standard is written with a eye towards chained addressing, users will be surprised if the performance doesn't reflect that.

So chained addressing is used.

Number of Buckets

There are two popular methods for choosing the number of buckets in a hash table. One is to have a prime number of buckets, another is to use a power of 2.

Using a prime number of buckets, and choosing a bucket by using the modulus of the hash function's result will usually give a good result. The downside is that the required modulus operation is fairly expensive. This is what the containers do in most cases.

Using a power of 2 allows for much quicker selection of the bucket to use, but at the expense of losing the upper bits of the hash value. For some specially designed hash functions it is possible to do this and still get a good result but as the containers can take arbitrary hash functions this can't be relied on.

To avoid this a transformation could be applied to the hash function, for an example see Thomas Wang's article on integer hash functions. Unfortunately, a transformation like Wang's requires knowledge of the number of bits in the hash value, so it isn't portable enough to use as a default. It can applicable in certain cases so the containers have a policy based implementation that can use this alternative technique.

Currently this is only done on 64 bit architectures, where prime number modulus can be expensive. Although this varies depending on the architecture, so I probably should revisit it.

I'm also thinking of introducing a mechanism whereby a hash function can indicate that it's safe to be used directly with power of 2 buckets, in which case a faster plain power of 2 implementation can be used.