You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
First of all, please excuse my possibly ignorant question as I'm not a CS guy - more of an engineer, and so I don't fully understand your academic paper.
I see that the class can be instantiated with any of the hashing functions and that by default you use a TwoIndependentMultiplyShift which appears to be an extremely efficient Universal Hashing algorithm.
What do you think of using SipHash? Do you think it would have a positive or negative impact on the effectiveness of the Cuckoo filter, its performance and overall properties?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
SipHash is quite slow compared to TwoIndependentMultiplyShift, but the resultant hash values would be more "random-looking", and so maximum fill factor might increase.
I think cuckoo filters are slightly more susceptible to hash collisions than linear probing based hash table designs, so you should demand better randomness properties from your hash function than you might accept from a linear probing based hash table.
First of all, please excuse my possibly ignorant question as I'm not a CS guy - more of an engineer, and so I don't fully understand your academic paper.
I see that the class can be instantiated with any of the hashing functions and that by default you use a
TwoIndependentMultiplyShift
which appears to be an extremely efficient Universal Hashing algorithm.What do you think of using SipHash? Do you think it would have a positive or negative impact on the effectiveness of the Cuckoo filter, its performance and overall properties?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: