Message175080
| Author |
arigo |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, Giovanni.Bajo, PaulMcMillan, Vlado.Boza, alex, arigo, benjamin.peterson, camara, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, koniiiik, lemburg, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年11月07日.11:05:59 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1352286360.06.0.465737958377.issue14621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
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). |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年11月07日 11:06:00 | arigo | set | recipients:
+ arigo, lemburg, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, Arfrever, alex, dmalcolm, Giovanni.Bajo, PaulMcMillan, serhiy.storchaka, Vlado.Boza, koniiiik, camara |
| 2012年11月07日 11:06:00 | arigo | set | messageid: <1352286360.06.0.465737958377.issue14621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年11月07日 11:06:00 | arigo | link | issue14621 messages |
| 2012年11月07日 11:05:59 | arigo | create |
|