Proof-of-concept is working.

As predicted, it is slow, but I’m able to store & retrieve data without actually storing the data anywhere. It’s tempting to immediately jump into attacking the performance problem, but I’m doing my best to hold-off until I understand every inch of what works and why.

After a somewhat long search for a hash function I settled on Pearson hashing . It seemed to have the essential properties while being fairly simple to understand and not deliberately cryptographic. I’m using a “textbook” implementation which can probably be improved on, and I’m still studying it so I can effectively improve it’s performance in my test system.

This brings up the next interesting observation. I have a hunch that it’s not the speed of the hashing function that is holding me back at this point but the speed of the “combinational” code that generates all possible input data. At first I thought this was a “permutation” problem and found a number of discussions on optimizing permutation however my problem is a bit more complex because the range of values isn’t limited to some initial set, just the size of the input.

I suspect I’m spending at least as much time in the combinational code as I am hashing, if not considerably more.

So other than documenting current progress, next steps include making sure I understand all of the parts of the working POC completely, and then inserting timing measurements to establish optimization priorities.

--

// jjg