[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ByteOrdered partitioner when using sha-1 as partition key

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Haddad <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The odds of only using a sha1 as your partition key for every table you ever create is low. You will regret BOP until the end of time.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 5:53 AM Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Probably best to avoid bop even if you are aflready hashing keys yourself. What do you do when checksuma collide? It is possible right?

On Saturday, February 11, 2017, Micha <micha-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

my table has a sha-1 sum as partition key. Would in this case the
ByteOrdered partitioner be a better choice than the Murmur3partitioner,
since the keys are quite random?


Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than usual.

Yes, the odds are low.

This has already been addressed for RP:

If you wanted to BOP and hash yourself you would have to make your primary key something like (shavalue,actualvalue) to ensure two keys do not overwrite each other.