The time it takes to calculate the hash is so insignificant that it doesn't even remotely come close to justifying all the drawbacks.
You can, of course, benchmark it. I wouldn't bother though. BOP is basically dead. On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:47 AM Micha <mich...@fantasymail.de> wrote: > I think I was not clear enough... > > I have *one* table for which the row data contains (among other values) > a sha-1 sum. There are no collisions. I thought computing a murmur hash > for a sha-1 sum is just wasted time, as the murmur hash doesn't make the > data more random than it already is. So it's just one table where this > matters. > > > Michael > > > Am 11.02.2017 um 16:54 schrieb Jonathan Haddad: > > The odds of only using a sha1 as your partition key for every table you > > ever create is low. You will regret BOP until the end of time. > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 5:53 AM Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com > > <mailto:edlinuxg...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Probably best to avoid bop even if you are aflready hashing keys > > yourself. What do you do when checksuma collide? It is possible > right? > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017, Micha <mich...@fantasymail.de > > <mailto:mich...@fantasymail.de>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > my table has a sha-1 sum as partition key. Would in this case the > > ByteOrdered partitioner be a better choice than the > > Murmur3partitioner, > > since the keys are quite random? > > > > > > cheers, > > Michael > > > > > > > > -- > > Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell > > check than usual. > > >
