Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Right, up to now, the user is responsible to care about it, as we do not store
the original key in the database and therefore cannot detect collisions. If we
store the original key in each replica, we could add a collision test, but
collisions are really rare and the test is almost always unnecessary.
Alternatively we could switch the hashing algorithm to SHA-2 or something with
even less collisions.
Original comment by schin...@gmail.com
on 4 Aug 2010 at 5:28
> Right, up to now, the user is responsible to care about it
But user can't control this due to unknown (for him) procedure of key
transformation.
>Alternatively we could switch the hashing algorithm to SHA-2 or something with
even less collisions.
This is just hiding the problem, but not the solution.
Is your position on this issue strict? Or in the future mechanism for
collisions resolving may be implemented?
Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com
on 5 Aug 2010 at 9:58
You could put the unhashed key into the value and use the transaction mechanism
to check whether there is a hash collision on this key.
At the moment, I would say that the risk of a collision is very small and if
you think that the risk is to high, you can place the unhashed key into the
value to check for collisions.
Original comment by schu...@gmail.com
on 6 Aug 2010 at 11:49
Ok. Thanks for the response.
Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com
on 6 Aug 2010 at 11:53
Original comment by schin...@gmail.com
on 12 Jan 2011 at 6:51
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
serge.po...@gmail.com
on 4 Aug 2010 at 10:31