<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>PTHash: Revisiting FCH Minimal Perfect Hashing · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.10402/</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/2104.10402/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>PTHash: Revisiting FCH Minimal Perfect Hashing — mentioned by judofyr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40446321</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2104.10402:40446321</guid><pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 20:47:49 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Very interesting and I&amp;#x27;ll have to read more to understand how it fully works, but _initially_ the space requirements doesn&amp;#x27;t seem too impressive? Am I missing something here? Is my calculation/assumption completely off? Maybe the solution here is more flexible? One alternative approach for many of these problems is to start with a perfect minimal hash function which hashes your key into a unique number [0, N) and then have a packed array of size N where each element is of a fixed byte size. To look up the value you first use the hash function to get an index, and then you look up in the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.10402/"&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>
