When asserting speedups and collision rates, please also mention what 
was the dataset used for the measurements.  In that way, others can 
replicate the results and compare hash functions on a consistent basis.

On 5/10/12 6:21 , Paul DeBruicker wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 04:21 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>> Sure, I already changed various Number>>hash and could as well change
>> Point hash to follow recommendations from Andres valloud book hashing
>> in smalltalk...
>>
>> Nicolas
>
> DateAndTime>>#hash could be changed to :
>
> hash
> 	^ (jdn hashMultiply bitXor: seconds + offset asSeconds) bitXor: nanos
>
> which is 130x faster than whats currently in the image:
>
> hash
> 	^ self asUTC ticks hash
>
>
> The collision rate on the proposed hash function is 0.04% ( 4 per 10,000 )
>
>