You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Current description says "in case of wrap around, to ease up chronological ordering, we need to calculate normalized generation indexes of entry i (gi): gi = (Gi + N) % N",
But looking at the example values for wrap-around case 2 3 5 18 , and the example gi values for these (18 19 21 2), the applied formula was actually gi = (Gi + N) % 2N.
Note that if the '% N' formula is applied, we'd get collisions on the example between Gi=2 and Gi=18, as they'd map to gi=2.
Hence the right formula should be %2N.
The correctness of the normalization could be checked based on the property "starting with some arbitrary Gi in [0, 2N), write an arbitrary number of entries <= N, and gi (the normalized Gi) should be oldest/smallest"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Current description says "in case of wrap around, to ease up chronological ordering, we need to calculate normalized generation indexes of entry i (gi): gi = (Gi + N) % N",
But looking at the example values for wrap-around case
2 3 5 18
, and the examplegi
values for these (18 19 21 2
), the applied formula was actuallygi = (Gi + N) % 2N
.Note that if the '% N' formula is applied, we'd get collisions on the example between
Gi=2
andGi=18
, as they'd map togi=2
.Hence the right formula should be
%2N
.The correctness of the normalization could be checked based on the property "starting with some arbitrary
Gi
in[0, 2N)
, write an arbitrary number of entries<= N
, andgi
(the normalizedGi
) should be oldest/smallest"The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: