Author lemburg
Recipients Arfrever, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, eric.araujo, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, jcea, lemburg, pitrou, terry.reedy, vstinner
Date 2012-01-04.17:18:29
SpamBayes Score 1.79075e-09
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4F0489DF.4020101@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <4F048156.30006@egenix.com>
Content
Marc-Andre Lemburg wrote:
> 
> 3. Changing the way strings are hashed doesn't solve the problem.
> 
> Hash values of other types can easily be guessed as well, e.g.
> take integers which use a trivial hash function.

Here's an example for integers on a 64-bit machine:

>>> g = ((x*(2**64 - 1), hash(x*(2**64 - 1))) for x in xrange(1, 1000000))
>>> d = dict(g)

This takes ages to complete and only uses very little memory.
The input data has some 32MB if written down in decimal numbers
- not all that much data either.

32397634
History
Date User Action Args
2012-01-04 17:18:30lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, gvanrossum, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, Arfrever, alex, dmalcolm, Mark.Shannon, Zhiping.Deng, PaulMcMillan
2012-01-04 17:18:30lemburglinkissue13703 messages
2012-01-04 17:18:30lemburgcreate