The time it takes to calculate the hash is so insignificant that it doesn't
even remotely come close to justifying all the drawbacks.
You can, of course, benchmark it. I wouldn't bother though. BOP is
basically dead.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:47 AM Micha wrote:
> I think I was not clear enough
Saw this one today...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13624062
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Eric Evans
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Edward Capriolo
> wrote:
> > Lets be clear:
> > What I am saying is avoiding being loose with the word "free"
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Micha wrote:
> I think I was not clear enough...
>
> I have *one* table for which the row data contains (among other values)
> a sha-1 sum. There are no collisions. I thought computing a murmur hash
> for a sha-1 sum is just wasted time, as the murmur hash doesn'
I think I was not clear enough...
I have *one* table for which the row data contains (among other values)
a sha-1 sum. There are no collisions. I thought computing a murmur hash
for a sha-1 sum is just wasted time, as the murmur hash doesn't make the
data more random than it already is. So it's
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> The odds of only using a sha1 as your partition key for every table you
> ever create is low. You will regret BOP until the end of time.
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 5:53 AM Edward Capriolo
> wrote:
>
>> Probably best to avoid bop even if y
The odds of only using a sha1 as your partition key for every table you
ever create is low. You will regret BOP until the end of time.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 5:53 AM Edward Capriolo
wrote:
> Probably best to avoid bop even if you are aflready hashing keys yourself.
> What do you do when checksum
Probably best to avoid bop even if you are aflready hashing keys yourself.
What do you do when checksuma collide? It is possible right?
On Saturday, February 11, 2017, Micha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my table has a sha-1 sum as partition key. Would in this case the
> ByteOrdered partitioner be a better c
Hi,
my table has a sha-1 sum as partition key. Would in this case the
ByteOrdered partitioner be a better choice than the Murmur3partitioner,
since the keys are quite random?
cheers,
Michael
