Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CityHash128 isn't thorough enough #4

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Aug 14, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

CityHash128 isn't thorough enough #4

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Aug 14, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. CityHash128() all 144-byte strings with 3 bits set
2. check for collisions

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

0 collisions are expected.  87 collisions are actually seen.  I saw the first 
collision after about 8 million of the keys.  That's the expected collision 
rate for a 46-bit hash, not a 128-bit hash.

(I had a hash of my own last year, AkronHash, that was also a 128-bit hash 
evolved from MurmurHash.  I quickly withdrew it due to similar quality issues.  
My current attempt, SpookyHash, passes this test.)


Original issue reported on code.google.com by bobjenki...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2011 at 8:00

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Thanks Bob!

We will fix this in a future release.

Original comment by gp...@google.com on 31 Aug 2011 at 8:43

  • Changed state: Started
  • Added labels: Priority-High
  • Removed labels: Priority-Medium

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Fixed in version 1.0.3.  Thanks again for the bug report!

Original comment by gp...@google.com on 6 Oct 2011 at 9:05

  • Changed state: Fixed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant