Re: Good hash for pointers

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 16:02:05 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
 

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? 

 
Factors that matter:

<snip>

 
Probably much of the above was obvious.  I make no apologies for
that.  Also it may seem disjointed or unorganized.  If so then
sorry about that chief, it's a big topic and there's a lot of
ground to cover, and I tried to hit the most important
highlights.

It sounds like you *postulate* that crypto is an ideal.
I am less in axioms and more interested in your experimental findings.