I'm currently preparing a unit on the implementation of hash tables for a data structures and algorithms course (this is a university-level class, if it matters).
Specifically, I'm focusing on preparing a lecture on different collision resolution strategies, focusing on mainly on separate chaining, linear probing, quadratic probing, and double hashing.
My question is this: why do we teach quadratic probing at all?
I initially added quadratic probing to my todo list mainly because previous instructors of my course taught it and because it's listed in several textbooks I consulted (Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in Java by Weiss, and Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen, et. al.)
However, I'm not really seeing the pedagogical value of doing so. While it's true that it does offer some minor theoretical speedups over linear probing which I suppose might be interesting to discuss, I don't think those speedups are actually "good enough" to be used in the wild (especially once you take into account things like cache locality, which can sometimes make linear probing surprisingly competitive).
Based on my (admitted informal and ad-hoc) survey of hash table implementations in popular programming languages, people seem to either use separate chaining (Java and C# (sort of)), double hashing (gcc's C++ stdlib implementation), or a linear congruential PRNG (Python).
In that case, is it worth bringing it up at all? I wouldn't mind covering it if I could use it as a vehicle to teach some more general CS concept in some way, or if it had interesting theoretical properties worth exploring, even if only briefly, but at the moment, it just doesn't seem worth the class time.
I suppose at best, I could use it as a stepping stone to bridge the gap between linear probing and some slightly more complicated technique, such as double hashing, but that's all I can think of.
Is there something I'm missing?