On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 WKRfresno_at_aol.com wrote:
> your second hash actually extends the 19001 (a prime?) values to some larger
> number (probably not a prime), but with twice the effort. If true, the same
> result could have been obtained, but more quickly by just increasing the
> 19001 and not expending the extra work.
>
> Didn't Fish use a word different than "MD5" to describe his hash function?
>
At the moment my hash function is indeed MD5? Can you recommend a better
hash function for a constant "raw" sized data?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> Bill Raymond
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> fc-solve-discuss-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif_at_vipe.technion.ac.il
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail: shlomif_at_techie.com
He who re-invents the wheel, understands much better how a wheel works.
Received on Tue Dec 11 2001 - 20:52:06 IST