Sujet : Re: Good hash for pointers
De : chris.m.thomasson.1 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 02. Jun 2024, 20:42:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3ihvr$3fvqo$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/2/2024 12:45 AM, Michael S wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 19:27:48 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>
Am 26.05.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Tim Rentsch:
I say the output quality is poor because I have run tests that
show the poor output quality.
>
If you chose a prime whose double is beyond 64 bit there's an
equal distribution among the 64 bit modulos.
I've done that with a prime of my own choosing and also with
18446744073709551557, the value you suggested.
>
Show me your code.
>
Oh get real. It's not my job to make up for your
laziness.
So, what were your conclusions?
Ignoring the speed of computation, would something like cryptographic
hash scaled to bucket size be a best hash for this type of application?
Or some sort of less thorough grinding of the bits is better?
Use this one... lol! I laugh because its not exactly fast... ;^)
http://fractallife247.com/test/hmac_cipher/ver_0_0_0_1?ct_hmac_cipher=eb1e27ed692b3cc98275fd002178baa0cbfc2e520a749d70ba7b4028b83982f4b42fd9d33a0f03e69b37fdbf3b63853b33c822afdf32f9810bdc542690e1bab726db1b9b9787d50432f521aa424296a83c319f2a299492ff72a9b61ae641f164cdbb864e2f1c047c6767a83c7678a0e30d63c935bb7c3326ffb3203179ee08e406851cb8e572c5005d81900ee87281e0743f3e41e64323776330408d76d6eb0cd569144a81cbbfa9b0a3cb94bfea4e25bfd94ec008b30573a2046178b02b9c855ec98a6eaa507d14fece8064
Good hash for pointers
Re: Good hash for pointers