RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jan 13 19:13:08 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115486.html

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>> How pathological do you consider the set
>>
>>   {1 << n for n in range(2000)}
>>
>> to be?  What about the set:
>>
>>   ieee754_powers_of_two = {2.0**n for n in range(-1074, 1024)}
>>
>> ?  The > 2000 elements of the latter set have only 61 distinct hash
>> values on 64-bit machine, so there will be over 2000 total collisions
>> involved in creating this set (though admittedly only around 30
>> collisions per hash value).
>
> Hm... So how does the collision counting work for this case?

Ah, my bad.  It looks like the ieee754_powers_of_two is safe---IIUC,
it's the number of collisions involved in a single key-set operation
that's limited.  So a dictionary with keys {1<<n for n in range(2000)}
is fine, but a dictionary with keys  {1<<(61*n) for n in range(2000)}
is not:

>>> {1<<(n*61):True for n in range(2000)}
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <dictcomp>
KeyError: 'too many hash collisions'
[67961 refs]

I'd still not consider this particularly pathological, though.

-- 
Mark

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115486.html below:

[Python-Dev] Status of the fix for the hash collision vulnerability