Talk:MurmurHash

Computer science Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was recreated after discussion with User:NuclearWarfare [1] and User:Jclemens [2]. You are encouraged to improve the article, but I believe it's in a state where there is no sound basis for deletion. Phil Spectre (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: MurmurHash3 has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.160.92.2 (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Algorithm Image Needs a Legend

As posted, the Algorithm diagram is incomprehensible. Specifically because it uses several operators: Cross and Circle-Plus that are variable operators in both Computer Science and Theoretical Mathematics. That is, they have no standard definition, but are intended to be defined in context. There is no in-context definition here, nor any pointer to one. Worse, it also uses a operator shr, which may be "shift right" except that the << / >> convention is already in use in the diagram.

By fishing around in Google, I might guess that Circle-Plus is intended to be XOR here, but that still leaves the Cross operator up in the air, as it could easily be either multiplication or the OR operation. Either a Legend should be provided or they should be replaced with less ambiguous symbols (such as *, if Cross is intended to be multiplication).

I also note the completely random use of semicolons, which I could easily fix on my own, but seems pointless until the larger confusion is resolved.

--RBarryYoung (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found a good unambiguous description of the algorithm at one of the references, so I will just fix it myself. ... RBarryYoung (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magic numbers

Where do the numbers c1 0xcc9e2d51, c2 0x1b873593, r1 15, r2 13, m 5, n 0xe6546b64 come from? QuentinUK (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

non-cryptographic

what are the qualities of murmur that qualify it as a non-cryptographic hash function? --Abdull (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All hash functions qualify as non-cryptographic, it's the default. A hash function qualifies for cryptographic if it meets certain criteria of the cryptographic community. You can see those by following the link at the beginning of the article to the Cryptographic Hash Function page.

RBarryYoung (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bug in C example code

The algorithm pseudo-code shows a line "hash ← hash XOR len" but by time the C version executes the equivalent line "hash ^= len;" len has been reduced to a number between 0 and 3 inclusive. This looks like a bug to me. 80.254.146.68 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]