4 ms·
Did you truncate the hash for dataset size considerations? If you associate data with the hash, I would guess the test data would dwarf the hash size, so why no
by AtlasBarfed 6y ago
Did you truncate the hash for dataset size considerations? If you associate data with the hash, I would guess the test data would dwarf the hash size, so why not do 128 or 256 hashes?
- tialaramex 6y agoThe hash is for content-based addressing. We're going to fasten those 60 truncated bits to a 4 bit tag that says this is a URI in the content-based storage. And then we can use this 8 byte value to refer to that URI twice, or fifty thousand times in our system even if the URI is a hundred bytes long - the only problem is collisions, so we need to be sure we notice if there is a collision and handle that correctly everywhere.