Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: On 07.11.2012 12:06, Armin Rigo wrote: > > Armin Rigo added the comment: > > Marc-André: estimating the risks of giving up on a valid query for a truly > random hash, at an overestimated one billion queries per second, in a 2/3 > full dictionary: > > * for 1000: 4E159 years between mistakes > > * for 100: 12.9 years between mistakes > > * for 150: 8E9 years between mistakes > > * for 200: 5E18 years between mistakes > > So while it seems that 100 might be a bit too small, using 150 to 200 is > perfectly safe (and that's "perfect" in the sense that a computer will > encounter random hardware errors at a higher rate than that).
I used the 1000 limit only as example. In tests Victor and I ran (see the original ticket from a few months ago), 200 turned out to be a reasonable number for the default maximum hash collision value. I'm not sure about the slot collision limit. We'd have to run more tests on those. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14621> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
