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

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

I think I was not clear enough...

I have *one* table for which the row data contains (among other values)
a sha-1 sum. There are no collisions.  I thought computing a murmur hash
for a sha-1 sum is just wasted time, as the murmur hash doesn't make the
data more random than it already is.   So it's just one table where this


Am 11.02.2017 um 16:54 schrieb Jonathan Haddad:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:micha-1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>         Hi,
>         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?
>         cheers,
>          Michael
>     -- 
>     Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell
>     check than usual.