<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>An Optimal Bloom Filter Replacement Based on Matrix Solving · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0804.1845/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0804.1845/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>An Optimal Bloom Filter Replacement Based on Matrix Solving — mentioned by Freaky</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17190419</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0804.1845:17190419</guid><pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 18:45:05 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Oh right, I was wrongly thinking you&amp;#x27;d have to memcmp the whole size of the filter. Yeah, it&amp;#x27;s just k single-bit lookups - ideally you do something to get them into clusters, like dividing the database into sub-filters, so you&amp;#x27;re doing random lookups into, say, a 32KB chunk instead of a whole 2GB filter. &amp;gt; Did you look into Cuckoo filters as well? Cuckoo filters look like an interesting alternative and looking at them more closely is on the to-do. I don&amp;#x27;t think they&amp;#x27;d have any significant space savings, though - they&amp;#x27;re similarly about 75% the size of the equivalent bloom filter. Maybe…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0804.1845/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DS</category></item></channel></rss>
