Re: Hash Function: MD5 or other? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Hash Function: MD5 or other?
Date
Msg-id 87zmtt1lvo.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hash Function: MD5 or other?  (Shelby Cain <alyandon@yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: Hash Function: MD5 or other?
Re: Hash Function: MD5 or other?
List pgsql-general
Shelby Cain <alyandon@yahoo.com> writes:

> > My question is: is the builtin MD5 appropriate for this use or should I be
> > using a function from pl/something? Figures on collision rates would be
> > nice as well - the typical chunk of text is probably 1k-8k.

Note that MD5 is slow and CPU-intensive. By design.

If you want a quick way to find matching records then you might find something
like CRC to be more useful. With MD5 it's supposed to be hard for someone to
come up with inputs that hash to a target value, but if you're not too worried
about people trying to do that then MD5 is probably overkill.


--
greg

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: martin
Date:
Subject: suse 9.2
Next
From: Howard Cole
Date:
Subject: Re: New to Postgre