15 / 17

Explain Open Addressing. (Linear Probing, Quadratic Probing, Double Hashing)

Difficulty: 5/10
collision resolution, probing strategies, hash table performance

Open Addressing

Open addressing stores every entry directly inside the Hash Table's array. When the preferred slot is occupied, the algorithm probes other slots according to a deterministic sequence until it finds the key or an available position. Common strategies are linear probing, quadratic probing, and double hashing.

javascript
  1. 1

    Linear probing checks consecutive slots and has good cache locality but can suffer from primary clustering.

  2. 2

    Quadratic probing uses increasing probe distances and reduces primary clustering.

  3. 3

    Double hashing uses a second hash function to produce a more independent probe sequence.

  4. 4

    Open addressing requires careful handling of deletion, often using tombstones.

  5. 5

    Performance degrades as the table becomes too full.

  6. 6

    Resizing is generally necessary at a lower load factor than with some chaining implementations.

Scenario Questions

0-2 years experience

  1. 1Suppose you need to implement a hash map for a small in‑memory cache using open addressing with linear probing. How would you handle inserting a new key when the initial slot is already occupied?
  2. 2If you use quadratic probing and the table size is a prime number, what could happen when the load factor reaches 0.9? How would you detect and resolve it?
  3. 3What happens if you try to delete a key in a hash table that uses linear probing without any special handling? Explain the issue.

2-5 years experience

  1. 1Your team added a feature that stores user sessions in a hash table using double hashing. After a deployment, you notice a spike in lookup latency. Walk me through how you would debug the probing sequence to find the root cause.
  2. 2When choosing between linear probing and quadratic probing for a hash table that will store up to 1 million entries, what trade‑offs would you consider regarding clustering and cache performance?
  3. 3During a load test, the hash table's load factor exceeds 0.75 and insertions start failing. How would you modify the open addressing implementation to handle this gracefully?

5-8 years experience

  1. 1Design a high‑throughput in‑memory key‑value store that uses open addressing. How would you decide which probing strategy to use, and what mechanisms would you add to keep performance stable under an 80% load factor?
  2. 2Explain how you would implement safe deletions in a hash table that uses double hashing in a multi‑threaded environment, ensuring no lost keys and minimal contention.
  3. 3Your service must support hot‑key skew where a few keys are accessed millions of times per second. How does open addressing affect this pattern, and what mitigations would you apply?

8+ years experience

  1. 1Our legacy system uses linear probing and is being migrated to a distributed cache. What architectural considerations would you evaluate when deciding whether to keep open addressing locally or replace it with a different data structure across nodes?
  2. 2When scaling a global hash table that uses double hashing, how would you handle rehashing and probing across rolling upgrades without downtime?
  3. 3Discuss the long‑term maintenance implications of using open addressing in a codebase that must support multiple languages and platforms. How would you standardize the implementation to avoid subtle bugs?

Follow-up Questions

  • How does the choice of probing strategy affect cache locality?
  • What are the implications of using a non‑prime table size with double hashing?
  • Can you compare the expected number of probes for each method at 50% load factor?
Share

Share via WhatsApp, X, Facebook, LinkedIn or copy link. Open Graph preview enabled.