From: "Nick Williams" <nickw@acm.org>
Subject: Re: hashing
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:41:01 GMT
Date: 2002-04-10T22:41:01+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1018478427.131028@ananke.eclipse.net.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mailman.1018477621.31315.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Could I just register my objection to the use of CRC-32 as a hashing
algorithm?
Cyclic redundancy checks are not designed to distribute through their range,
but rather to detect multiple bit errors. They are much less than ideal when
hashing potentially similar strings.
Cheers,
Nick.
"Steven Deller" <deller@smsail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1018477621.31315.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> Other than that, I'd try one of the numerous ISO-defined hash functions,
> such as CRC-32, etc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-10 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-10 21:31 hashing chris.danx
2002-04-10 21:24 ` hashing Steven Deller
2002-04-10 22:41 ` Nick Williams [this message]
2002-04-10 23:36 ` hashing chris.danx
2002-04-11 14:18 ` hashing joevl
2002-04-15 15:32 ` hashing Ken Burtch
2002-04-11 23:18 ` hashing(HATs. A more efficient algorithm?) Wannabe h4x0r
2002-04-11 23:29 ` chris.danx
2002-04-12 7:24 ` Wannabe h4x0r
2002-04-12 15:00 ` Chad R. Meiners
2002-04-12 17:22 ` tmoran
2002-04-10 21:56 ` hashing Chad R. Meiners
2002-04-10 23:43 ` hashing Ted Dennison
2002-04-11 16:12 ` hashing Georg Bauhaus
2002-04-11 22:36 ` hashing Simon Wright
2002-05-03 10:16 ` hashing Antonio Duran
2002-05-05 13:55 ` hashing Robert Dewar
2002-05-06 20:42 ` hashing Antonio Duran
2002-05-06 23:36 ` hashing Jeffrey Carter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-10 22:00 hashing Beard, Frank [Contractor]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox