2 #include "sha1-lookup.h"
4 static uint32_t take2(const unsigned char *sha1
)
6 return ((sha1
[0] << 8) | sha1
[1]);
10 * Conventional binary search loop looks like this:
13 * int mi = (lo + hi) / 2;
14 * int cmp = "entry pointed at by mi" minus "target";
16 * return (mi is the wanted one)
18 * hi = mi; "mi is larger than target"
20 * lo = mi+1; "mi is smaller than target"
25 * - When entering the loop, lo points at a slot that is never
26 * above the target (it could be at the target), hi points at a
27 * slot that is guaranteed to be above the target (it can never
30 * - We find a point 'mi' between lo and hi (mi could be the same
31 * as lo, but never can be the same as hi), and check if it hits
32 * the target. There are three cases:
34 * - if it is a hit, we are happy.
36 * - if it is strictly higher than the target, we update hi with
39 * - if it is strictly lower than the target, we update lo to be
40 * one slot after it, because we allow lo to be at the target.
42 * When choosing 'mi', we do not have to take the "middle" but
43 * anywhere in between lo and hi, as long as lo <= mi < hi is
44 * satisfied. When we somehow know that the distance between the
45 * target and lo is much shorter than the target and hi, we could
46 * pick mi that is much closer to lo than the midway.
49 * The table should contain "nr" elements.
50 * The sha1 of element i (between 0 and nr - 1) should be returned
53 int sha1_pos(const unsigned char *sha1
, void *table
, size_t nr
,
64 size_t lov
, hiv
, miv
, ofs
;
66 for (ofs
= 0; ofs
< 18; ofs
+= 2) {
67 lov
= take2(fn(0, table
) + ofs
);
68 hiv
= take2(fn(nr
- 1, table
) + ofs
);
69 miv
= take2(sha1
+ ofs
);
76 * At this point miv could be equal
77 * to hiv (but sha1 could still be higher);
78 * the invariant of (mi < hi) should be
81 mi
= (nr
- 1) * (miv
- lov
) / (hiv
- lov
);
82 if (lo
<= mi
&& mi
< hi
)
84 die("BUG: assertion failed in binary search");
88 die("cannot happen -- lo and hi are identical");
93 cmp
= hashcmp(fn(mi
, table
), sha1
);
106 * Conventional binary search loop looks like this:
110 * unsigned mi = (lo + hi) / 2;
111 * int cmp = "entry pointed at by mi" minus "target";
113 * return (mi is the wanted one)
115 * hi = mi; "mi is larger than target"
117 * lo = mi+1; "mi is smaller than target"
120 * The invariants are:
122 * - When entering the loop, lo points at a slot that is never
123 * above the target (it could be at the target), hi points at a
124 * slot that is guaranteed to be above the target (it can never
127 * - We find a point 'mi' between lo and hi (mi could be the same
128 * as lo, but never can be as same as hi), and check if it hits
129 * the target. There are three cases:
131 * - if it is a hit, we are happy.
133 * - if it is strictly higher than the target, we set it to hi,
134 * and repeat the search.
136 * - if it is strictly lower than the target, we update lo to
137 * one slot after it, because we allow lo to be at the target.
139 * If the loop exits, there is no matching entry.
141 * When choosing 'mi', we do not have to take the "middle" but
142 * anywhere in between lo and hi, as long as lo <= mi < hi is
143 * satisfied. When we somehow know that the distance between the
144 * target and lo is much shorter than the target and hi, we could
145 * pick mi that is much closer to lo than the midway.
147 * Now, we can take advantage of the fact that SHA-1 is a good hash
148 * function, and as long as there are enough entries in the table, we
149 * can expect uniform distribution. An entry that begins with for
150 * example "deadbeef..." is much likely to appear much later than in
151 * the midway of the table. It can reasonably be expected to be near
152 * 87% (222/256) from the top of the table.
154 * However, we do not want to pick "mi" too precisely. If the entry at
155 * the 87% in the above example turns out to be higher than the target
156 * we are looking for, we would end up narrowing the search space down
157 * only by 13%, instead of 50% we would get if we did a simple binary
158 * search. So we would want to hedge our bets by being less aggressive.
160 * The table at "table" holds at least "nr" entries of "elem_size"
161 * bytes each. Each entry has the SHA-1 key at "key_offset". The
162 * table is sorted by the SHA-1 key of the entries. The caller wants
163 * to find the entry with "key", and knows that the entry at "lo" is
164 * not higher than the entry it is looking for, and that the entry at
165 * "hi" is higher than the entry it is looking for.
167 int sha1_entry_pos(const void *table
,
170 unsigned lo
, unsigned hi
, unsigned nr
,
171 const unsigned char *key
)
173 const unsigned char *base
= table
;
174 const unsigned char *hi_key
, *lo_key
;
176 static int debug_lookup
= -1;
178 if (debug_lookup
< 0)
179 debug_lookup
= !!getenv("GIT_DEBUG_LOOKUP");
187 hi_key
= base
+ elem_size
* hi
+ key_offset
;
188 lo_key
= base
+ elem_size
* lo
+ key_offset
;
193 unsigned ofs
, mi
, range
;
194 unsigned lov
, hiv
, kyv
;
195 const unsigned char *mi_key
;
199 for (ofs
= ofs_0
; ofs
< 20; ofs
++)
200 if (lo_key
[ofs
] != hi_key
[ofs
])
204 * byte 0 thru (ofs-1) are the same between
205 * lo and hi; ofs is the first byte that is
208 * If ofs==20, then no bytes are different,
209 * meaning we have entries with duplicate
210 * keys. We know that we are in a solid run
211 * of this entry (because the entries are
212 * sorted, and our lo and hi are the same,
213 * there can be nothing but this single key
214 * in between). So we can stop the search.
215 * Either one of these entries is it (and
216 * we do not care which), or we do not have
219 * Furthermore, we know that one of our
220 * endpoints must be the edge of the run of
221 * duplicates. For example, given this
227 * If we are searching for "B", we might
228 * hit the duplicate run at lo=1, hi=3
229 * (e.g., by first mi=3, then mi=0). But we
230 * can never have lo > 1, because B < C.
231 * That is, if our key is less than the
232 * run, we know that "lo" is the edge, but
233 * we can say nothing of "hi". Similarly,
234 * if our key is greater than the run, we
235 * know that "hi" is the edge, but we can
236 * say nothing of "lo".
238 * Therefore if we do not find it, we also
239 * know where it would go if it did exist:
240 * just on the far side of the edge that we
245 mi_key
= base
+ elem_size
* mi
+ key_offset
;
246 cmp
= memcmp(mi_key
, key
, 20);
257 hiv
= (hiv
<< 8) | hi_key
[ofs_0
+1];
266 lov
= (lov
<< 8) | lo_key
[ofs_0
+1];
267 kyv
= (kyv
<< 8) | key
[ofs_0
+1];
277 * Even if we know the target is much closer to 'hi'
278 * than 'lo', if we pick too precisely and overshoot
279 * (e.g. when we know 'mi' is closer to 'hi' than to
280 * 'lo', pick 'mi' that is higher than the target), we
281 * end up narrowing the search space by a smaller
282 * amount (i.e. the distance between 'mi' and 'hi')
283 * than what we would have (i.e. about half of 'lo'
284 * and 'hi'). Hedge our bets to pick 'mi' less
285 * aggressively, i.e. make 'mi' a bit closer to the
286 * middle than we would otherwise pick.
288 kyv
= (kyv
* 6 + lov
+ hiv
) / 8;
295 mi
= (range
- 1) * (kyv
- lov
) / (hiv
- lov
) + lo
;
298 printf("lo %u hi %u rg %u mi %u ", lo
, hi
, range
, mi
);
299 printf("ofs %u lov %x, hiv %x, kyv %x\n",
300 ofs_0
, lov
, hiv
, kyv
);
302 if (!(lo
<= mi
&& mi
< hi
))
303 die("assertion failure lo %u mi %u hi %u %s",
304 lo
, mi
, hi
, sha1_to_hex(key
));
306 mi_key
= base
+ elem_size
* mi
+ key_offset
;
307 cmp
= memcmp(mi_key
+ ofs_0
, key
+ ofs_0
, 20 - ofs_0
);
315 lo_key
= mi_key
+ elem_size
;