Hey,

On Apr 21, 2009, at 17:46 , Joe Bofh wrote:

>
> Igor,
>
> If you look at the docs, it is supposed to have excellent collision
> resistance.
> See http://tanjent.livejournal.com/756623.html
>
> Given that cache objects are supposed to have a limited shelf life
> (days, months), I would think that collision resistance is vs. hashing
> performance is a decent tradeoff.
>
> I guess if you put in an option to specify the hash, that would work
> too. FNV and Murmur have been adopted on various open source
> projects as
> optional hashs because of the hashing performance.

For reference; libmemcached - another high performing project -
nowadays include most current hashing algorithms. Fnv1a and murmur are
two of them. See: http://hg.tangent.org/libmemcached/file/048b32d9d1ae/docs/memcached_behavior.pod
(sorry for bad linkage, the site docs/manpage hasn't been updated
for a while)

Two my knowledge, murmur/murmur2 is the best pick for a high
performance/low (but not zero) collision tradeoff.

>
>
> --J
>
> Igor Sysoev wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Joe Bofh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> See
>>> http://search.cpan.org/~tmaesaka/Digest-MurmurHash-0.10/lib/Digest/MurmurHash.pm#BENCHMARK
>>> http://murmurhash.googlepages.com/
>>>
>>> for sample implementations.
>>
>> Thank you for information, but as I understand this hash produce
>> 32- or
>> 64-bit hash. I believe it should have more collisions as compared to
>> md5,
>> which is 128-bit hash.
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>