Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Return type of hash* functions is just 32 bits. I wonder if that's wide
>> enough
>> to avoid accidental collisions? Depends on the application of course...
> Oh, I missed that you were suggesting a UNIQUE index. That seems unsafe to me
> even for md5 or its ilk. But that would depend on the application too.
md5 is designed to be a signature, remember? If there weren't a very
high probability of its output being different for different inputs,
it wouldn't be good for anything.
The built-in hash functions definitely cannot be relied on to not have
collisions, though.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
