[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4919?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13626478#comment-13626478
]
Dawid Weiss commented on LUCENE-4919:
-------------------------------------
This isn't a bug, it's a definition like any other. In general any definition
of hash(X), even hash(X) = 42 is also valid (obviously with poor
space-distributing properties...). The question which particular hash function
to pick and what inputs it should consume (number of elements, values of
elements) is kind of difficult -- when you include more elements into
computations the distribution for certain inputs may be better but you'll
probably loose some performance on the average case.
> IntsRef, BytesRef and CharsRef return incorrect hashcode when filled with 0
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4919
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4919
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/other
> Affects Versions: 4.2
> Reporter: Renaud Delbru
> Fix For: 4.3
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4919.patch
>
>
> IntsRef, BytesRef and CharsRef implementation do not follow the java
> Arrays.hashCode implementation, and return incorrect hashcode when filled
> with 0.
> For example, an IntsRef with \{ 0 \} will return the same hashcode than an
> IntsRef with \{ 0, 0 \}.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
