<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012-09-21 19:17, Bryan O'Sullivan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACw0niKAQ0DBp2fahGRS+8w9LaKSA6Jra=JtL4HD2gT1tf3sJw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Noel Grandin <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:noel@peralex.com" target="_blank">noel@peralex.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Since this isn't a
crypto application, you're probably better off with a
cheaper hash function like murmur hash, for which there is
both C and Python code:<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>It's not a crypto application, but collisions would be
catastrophic. Functions that produce smaller hashes are
obviously much more vulnerable, and murmur in particular is
problematic due to having poor collision properties on some
easily produced families of inputs.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Non-crypto hashes are not defacto smaller, nor are they more likely
to produce collisions. They are just cheaper to compute.<br>
And Murmur appears to have fixed it's collision issues in Murmur3.<br>
But if what you mean is that you'd like 256 bits in your hash result
instead of just 128, then CityHash is probably a good choice.<br>
<a href="http://code.google.com/p/cityhash/">http://code.google.com/p/cityhash/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br><hr><font size="-2" color=808080>Disclaimer: <a href="http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html">http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html</a><br><br>
</body>
</html>