Author arigo
Recipients Arfrever, Giovanni.Bajo, PaulMcMillan, Vlado.Boza, alex, arigo, benjamin.peterson, camara, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, haypo, koniiiik, lemburg, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2012-11-07.11:05:59
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1352286360.06.0.465737958377.issue14621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Marc-André: estimating the risks of giving up on a valid query for a truly random hash, at an overestimated one billion queries per second, in a 2/3 full dictionary:

* for 1000: 4E159 years between mistakes

* for 100: 12.9 years between mistakes

* for 150: 8E9 years between mistakes

* for 200: 5E18 years between mistakes

So while it seems that 100 might be a bit too small, using 150 to 200 is perfectly safe (and that's "perfect" in the sense that a computer will encounter random hardware errors at a higher rate than that).
History
Date User Action Args
2012-11-07 11:06:00arigosetrecipients: + arigo, lemburg, haypo, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, Arfrever, alex, dmalcolm, Giovanni.Bajo, PaulMcMillan, serhiy.storchaka, Vlado.Boza, koniiiik, camara
2012-11-07 11:06:00arigosetmessageid: <1352286360.06.0.465737958377.issue14621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-11-07 11:06:00arigolinkissue14621 messages
2012-11-07 11:05:59arigocreate