Talk:SE250:lab-5:Maintainers report

Comments from John Hamer

I'm surprised and pleased that the lab report has appeared so soon after the lab. I'm less pleased to see sections from the 2007 HTTB appear without this work being referenced. If you don't reference your sources you are implicitly claiming the work is yours. If it's not, then you are plagiarising.

Your report is required to summarise any difficulties the class had with the lab, not just give the results. I have posted comments on all of the reports that appeared by Tuesday evening, and you will find many issues mentioned in those comments that need to be included in this report.

Your report also needs to be technically accurate. Stating that the sample size must be 1000 because "we can not get a value larger than the table_size" is false. For Monte Carlo, "The percentage of points inside the circle and the percentage of points outside the circle should be the same" is false. A serial coefficient of zero is not proof of randomness. "Sample_size is the amount of values that we want to put into the table" is false. "n_keys is the number of rows in the table" is false.

You can also take the time to present the results in the most appropriate form. I.e. a graph. The graph should be designed to allow immediate visual comparison between the hash functions, along as many dimensions of randomness as you can squeeze in.

The difference between llps and llps_i needs to be explained.

Results for a range of load factors are needed.

Your conclusion needs to be tightened up. You have to do better than say its "difficult to determine". It's not, really.

Your comments on rand and high_rand are wrong.

If "some people" ranked buzhash higher than buzhashn, then you need to record their reasons. They had better be good reasons, as it's the same function.