3 ms·

If the distribution of bits isn't better, you would prefer a faster hash for a table that doesn't care about adversarial inputs. (And if you do care about adve

by loeg 2y ago

If the distribution of bits isn't better, you would prefer a faster hash for a table that doesn't care about adversarial inputs. (And if you do care about adversarial inputs, I think you need an actually secure hash? Medium confidence on that.)

bcoates 2y ago
For adversarial inputs, even a cryptographic hash won't save you, the cost of brute force searching for pathological keys is based the number of buckets not the cost of finding full collisions.
- tptacek 2y ago
  There's a whole literature of cryptographic hashes designed for this problem.