Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • What problem do you try to solve? Why is it too slow? How many hashes do you have to generate so you need a faster solution? PLease make some more comments so we can help you better. Commented Jul 31, 2011 at 23:28
  • Simple checksums should be fast, and if speed is a real issue, you can base it on a prefix (or suffix) of the URL. Commented Jul 31, 2011 at 23:29
  • As I said in your original question, if you want correctness, a standard hashing function alone isn't going to cut it. You either need to use a cryptographic hash, or store the original text (eg using a Trie). Commented Aug 1, 2011 at 3:39