• tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The article calls out hash functions and links to the relevant Wikipedia page, so I don’t think this is solely about cryptographic hash functions, though that seems to be what you were talking to the other user about.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I see what you are saying. But if you aren’t using a cryptographic hash function then collisions don’t matter in your use case anyway, otherwise you’d be using a cryptographic hash function.

      For example, you’d use a non-cryptographic hash function for a hashmap. While collisions aren’t exactly desireable in that use case, they also aren’t bad and in fact, the whole process is designed with them in mind. And it doesn’t matter at all that the distribution might not be perfect.

      So when we are talking about a context where collisions matter, there’s no question whether you should use a cryptographic hash or not.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Why wouldn’t collisions matter in a hash map? They’re directly attributable to the speed of the hash map. In fact I would venture to say that collisions are directly attributable to speed in all situations. That matters, right? Especially at the language level.