Polynomial hash functions are reliable

Extended abstract
  • M. Dietzfelbinger
  • J. Gil
  • Y. Matias
  • N. Pippenger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 623)


Polynomial hash functions are well studied and widely used in various applications. They have gained popularity because of certain performances they exhibit. It has been shown that even linear hash functions are expected to have such performances. However, quite often we would like the hash functions to be reliable, meaning that they perform well with high probability; for some certain important properties even higher degree polynomials were not known to be reliable. We show that for certain important properties linear hash functions are not reliable. We give indication that quadratic hash functions might not be reliable. On the positive side, we prove that cubic hash functions are reliable. In a more general setting, we show that higher degree of the polynomial hash functions translates into higher reliability. We also introduce a new class of hash functions, which enables to reduce the universe size in an efficient and simple manner. The reliability results and the new class of hash functions are used for some fundamental applications: improved and simplified reliable algorithms for perfect hash functions and real-time dictionaries, which use significantly less random bits, and tighter upper bound for the program size of perfect hash functions.


Hash Function Finite Field Program Size Universal Classis High Degree Polynomial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    N. Alon, L. Babai, and A. Itai. A fast and simple randomized parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. J. of Alg., 7:567–583, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. J. Carter and M. N. Wegman. Universal classes of hash functions. JCSS, 18:143–154, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Chor and O. Goldreich. On the power of two-point based sampling. J. Complexity, 5:96–106, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Dietzfelbinger, A. R. Karlin, K. Mehlhorn, F. Meyer auf der Heide, H. Rohnert, and R. E. Tarian. Dynamic perfect hashing: Upper and lower bounds. Technical Report 70, Universität Paderborn, Gesamthochschule, Jan. 1991. Revised Version of the paper of the same title that appeared in FOCS '88, pp. 524–531.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Dietzfelbinger and F. Meyer auf der Heide. A new universal class of hash functions and dynamic hashing in real time. In ICALP '90 (LNCS 443), pp. 6–19, July 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. L. Fredman, J. Komlós, and E. Szemerédi. Storing a sparse table with O(1) worst case access time. J. ACM, 31(3):538–544, July 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Gil and Y. Matias. Fast hashing on a PRAM-designing by expectation. In SODA '91, pp. 271–280, Jan. 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Gil, Y. Matias, and U. Vishkin. Towards a theory of nearly constant time parallel algorithms. In FOCS '91, pp. 698–710.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. T. M. Jacobs and P. van Emde Boas. Two results on tables. IPL, 22(1):43–48, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Joffe. On a set of almost deterministic k-independent random variables. The Annals of Prob., 2:161–162, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. R. Karlin and E. Upfal. Parallel hashing-an efficient implementation of shared memory. In STOC '86, pp. 160–168.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. E. Knuth. Sorting and Searching, volume 3 of The Art of Computer Programming.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. P. Kruskal. L. Rudolph, and M. Snir. A complexity theory of efficient parallel algorithms. TCS, 71:95–132, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Luby. A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. SIAM J. Comput., 15(4):1036–1053, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. G. Mairson. The program complexity of searching a table. In FOCS '83, pp. 40–75.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Markowsky, L. J. Carter, and M. N. Wegman. Analysis of a universal class of hash functions. In MFCS '78, pp. 345–354, 1978.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Mehlhorn. On the program size of perfect and universal hash functions. In FOCS '82, pp. 170–175.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Mehlhorn. Data Structures and Algorithms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Mehlhorn and U. Vishkin. Randomized and deterministic simulations of PRAMs by parallel machines with restricted granularity of parallel memories. Acta Inf., 21:339–374, 1984.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Nisan. Pseudorandom generators for space-bounded computations. In STOC '90, pp. 204–212.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. V. Ramakrishna and P.-A. Larson. File organization using composite perfect hashing. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 14(9);231–263. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. G. Ranade. How to emulate shared memory. In FOCS '87, pp. 185–194.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. G. Ranade, S. N. Bhatt, and S. L. Johnsson. The fluent abstract machine. In Proc. of the 5th MIT Conference on Advanced Research in VLSI, pp. 71–93, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. P. Schmidt and A. Siegel. The spatial complexity of oblivious k-probe hash functions. SIAM J. Comput., 19(5):775–786, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Siegel. On universal classes of fast high performance hash functions, their time-space tradeoff, and their applications. In FOCS '89, pp. 20–25.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Slot and P. van Emde Boas. On tape versus core; an application of space efficient hash functions to the invariance of space. In STOC '84, pp. 391–400.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. N. Wegman and L. J. Carter. New classes and applications of hash functions. In FOCS '79, pp. 175–182.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. N. Wegman and L. J. Carter. New hash functions and their use in authentication and set equality. JCSS, 22:265–279, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. C. Yao. Should tables be sorted? J. ACM, 28(3);615–628, July 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Dietzfelbinger
    • 1
  • J. Gil
    • 2
  • Y. Matias
    • 3
    • 4
  • N. Pippenger
    • 2
  1. 1.Fachbereich Mathematik/Informatik and Heinz-Nixdorf-lnstituteUniversität-GH-PaderbornPaderbornFed. Rep. Germany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations