atom feed30 messages in org.python.python-dev[Python-Dev] String hash function mul...
FromSent OnAttachments
Raymond HettingerApr 13, 2004 8:00 pm 
Jeff EplerApr 13, 2004 9:10 pm 
Bob IppolitoApr 13, 2004 9:26 pm 
Jeff EplerApr 13, 2004 10:04 pm 
Raymond HettingerApr 13, 2004 10:17 pm 
Jeff EplerApr 13, 2004 11:10 pm 
Guido van RossumApr 13, 2004 11:26 pm 
Tim PetersApr 13, 2004 11:56 pm 
Jeff EplerApr 14, 2004 9:08 am 
Raymond HettingerApr 14, 2004 12:06 pm 
Andrew MacIntyreApr 14, 2004 3:23 pm 
Jeff EplerApr 14, 2004 3:35 pm 
Mike PallApr 14, 2004 5:50 pm 
Tim PetersApr 14, 2004 11:14 pm 
Michael HudsonApr 15, 2004 7:05 am 
Mike PallApr 15, 2004 9:36 am 
Guido van RossumApr 15, 2004 10:27 am 
Jeremy HyltonApr 15, 2004 10:38 am 
Guido van RossumApr 15, 2004 10:42 am 
Mike PallApr 15, 2004 11:56 am 
Mike PallApr 15, 2004 11:56 am 
Skip MontanaroApr 15, 2004 11:59 am 
Michael HudsonApr 15, 2004 1:27 pm 
Raymond HettingerApr 15, 2004 2:22 pm 
Thomas HellerApr 15, 2004 2:31 pm 
"Martin v. Löwis"Apr 15, 2004 3:07 pm 
Jeremy HyltonApr 15, 2004 11:26 pm 
Tim PetersApr 16, 2004 12:18 am 
"Martin v. Löwis"Apr 16, 2004 2:00 am 
Andrew MacIntyreApr 16, 2004 9:14 pm 
Subject:[Python-Dev] String hash function multiplier
From:Guido van Rossum (gui@python.org)
Date:Apr 13, 2004 11:26:33 pm
List:org.python.python-dev

Does anyone have any issues with changing the hash multiplier for the string and Unicode hash functions?

Instead of 1000003, I would like to use Aho's 65599, a prime near 2**16 that is efficiently expressible as (x << 6) + (x << 16) - x. This replaces a multiply with fast adds and shifts (with the two shifts potentially being executed in parallel).

Googling for "hash 65599" shows a long history of widespread use and testing without any problems.

It would break the parrot benchmark, which has a re-implementation of the hash in Python and assumes/checks at various points that the two agree.

So I'd rather not see this changed before July 30.