Separate chaining stores colliding keys in a bucket list (or tree). Open addressing keeps all entries in the table and probes alternative slots (e.g., linear/quadratic probing, double hashing). Chaining is simpler for deletes; open addressing can be more cache-friendly but is sensitive to load factor.
Advanced answer
Deep dive
Expanding on the short answer — what usually matters in practice:
Complexity: compare typical operations (average vs worst-case).
Invariants: what must always hold for correctness.
When the choice is wrong: production symptoms (latency, GC, cache misses).
Explain the "why", not just the "what" (intuition + consequences).
Trade-offs: what you gain/lose (time, memory, complexity, risk).
Edge cases: empty inputs, large inputs, invalid inputs, concurrency.
Examples
A tiny example (an explanation template):
// Example: discuss trade-offs for "hash-table-collisions:-what-is-the-difference-be"
function explain() {
// Start from the core idea:
// Separate chaining stores colliding keys in a bucket list (or tree). Open addressing keeps
}
Common pitfalls
Too generic: no concrete trade-offs or examples.
Mixing average-case and worst-case (e.g., complexity).