On Tue, 5 May 2009 02:15:09 +0900, Robert K. wrote:
Hm… But you do admit that this is a bit abusive, do you?
Especially since there are no guarantees that you won’t have any
collisions with a hash value like the one returned by #hash.
Oh yes, it’s just a quick and convenient way of doing it. Dunno if I’d
call it “abusive”, but it’s sure not military grade programming…
How about storing your cache files with a fixed name in the original
directory? Or have a file with metadata (mapping from path to cache
Fixed name won’t work; most directories are scm tracked so it’d be a
mess to keep the cache files out of the way. One big(ish) cache file
might work. Maybe even a sqlite db. Have to run some benchmark on that.
that stay consistent. Do I need to MD5 it? Feels like overkill. Why
was this changed in the first place?
That’s an interesting question. I’m curious as well. Maybe the
changes are just a side effect of a new - supposedly better - hashing
The link sebastian provided (http://murmurhash.googlepages.com/) was
interesting but not exhaustive and I still don’t know when/how/why the
behaviour was changed. Perhaps the ml archives will tell?