2-choice hashing
variant of hash table

2-choice hashing, also known as 2-choice chaining, is "a variant of a hash table in which keys are added by hashing with two hash functions. The key is put in the array position with the fewer (colliding) keys. Some collision resolution scheme is needed, unless keys are kept in buckets. The average-case cost of a successful search is
O
(
2
+
(
m
−
1
)
/
n
)
{\displaystyle O(2+(m-1)/n)}
, where
m
{\displaystyle m}
is the number of keys and
n
{\displaystyle n}
is the size of the array. The most collisions is
log
2
ln
n
+
θ
(
m
/
n
)
{\displaystyle \log _{2}\ln n+\theta (m/n)}
with high probability."
How it works
2-choice hashing utilizes two hash functions h1(x) and h2(x). The two hash functions should be independent and have no correlation to each other. Having two hash functions allows any key x to have up to two potential locations to be stored based on the values of the respective outputs, h1(x) and h2(x). Although there are two hash functions, there is only one table; both hash functions map to locations on that table.
Implementation
The most important functions of the hashing implementation in this case are insertion and search.
Insertion: When inserting the values of both hash functions are computed for the to-be-inserted object.
The public source identifies “2-choice hashing” as variant of hash table. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around 2-choice, hashing and variant.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “2-choice hashing”, the useful work is to connect “variant of hash table” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4596934. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “2-choice hashing”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow 2-choice hashing primary sources, 2-choice hashing archive and 2-choice research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “2-choice hashing”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “2-choice hashing” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.