Author tim.peters
Recipients eric.smith, jdemeyer, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, sir-sigurd, tim.peters
Date 2018-10-02.21:57:13
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1538517433.41.0.545547206417.issue34751@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> So it seems that this SMHasher test suite doesn't
> catch the problem that we're seeing with negative integers.

Seems to be so, but I've never run SMHasher myself.  I believe it's focused on statistical properties, like avalanche and bit independence.


> However, we ideally want a hash that works well for
> all kinds of inputs. If the hash function is good,
> it shouldn't be possible to write a hash collision
> test function which has a significantly higher chance
> of failing than random chance.

I know of no such hash functions short of crypto-strength ones.  Nobody uses those for hash tables, though, because they're much slower and usually much more involved.
History
Date User Action Args
2018-10-02 21:57:13tim.peterssetrecipients: + tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, eric.smith, jdemeyer, sir-sigurd
2018-10-02 21:57:13tim.peterssetmessageid: <1538517433.41.0.545547206417.issue34751@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-10-02 21:57:13tim.peterslinkissue34751 messages
2018-10-02 21:57:13tim.peterscreate