More analysis of double hashing

Authors:
George Lueker;Mariko Molodowitch
Affiliations:
Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA;Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA
Venue:
STOC '88 Proceedings of the twentieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Year:
1988

Citing 4
Cited 7

Uniform hashing is optimal

Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The art of computer programming, volume 3: (2nd ed.) sorting and searching

The art of computer programming, volume 3: (2nd ed.) sorting and searching
A Note on the Efficiency of Hashing Functions

Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The Differencing Method of Set Partitioning

The Differencing Method of Set Partitioning

On aspects of university and performance for closed hashing

STOC '89 Proceedings of the twenty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
The cost distribution of clustering in random probing

Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The analysis of closed hashing under limited randomness

STOC '90 Proceedings of the twenty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
On the statistical dependencies of coalesced hashing and their implications for both full and limited independence

Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms
Dynamical system representation of open address hash functions

Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms
Less hashing, same performance: building a better bloom filter

ESA'06 Proceedings of the 14th conference on Annual European Symposium - Volume 14
Unique permutation hashing

Theoretical Computer Science

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In [GS78] a deep and elegant analysis showed that double hashing was equivalent to the ideal uniform hashing up to a load factor of about 0.319. In this paper we give an analysis which extends this to load factors arbitrarily close to 1. We understand from [Ko86, Gu87] that Ajtai, Guibas, Komlós, and Szemerédi obtained this result in the first part of 1986; the analysis in this paper is of interest nonetheless because we demonstrate how a resampling technique can be used to obtain a remarkably simple proof.