Return to Answer

• A list of 216,553 English words ^{🕗archive}(in lowercase)
• The numbers "1" to "216553" (think ZIP codes, and how a poor hash took down msn.com ^{🕗archive})
• 216,553 "random" (i.e. type 4 uuid) GUIDs

Except when hashing number strings ("1", "2", ..., "216553") (for example, zip codes), where patterns begin to emerge in most of the hashing algorithms:

• A list of 216,553 English words ^{🕗archive}(in lowercase)
• The numbers "1" to "216553" (think ZIP codes, and how a poor hash took down msn.com ^{🕗archive})
• 216,553 "random" (i.e. type 4 uuid) GUIDs

Except when hashing number strings ("1", "2", ..., "216553") (for example, zip codes), where patterns begin to emerge in most of the hashing algorithms:

• A list of 216,553 English words ^{🕗archive}(in lowercase)
• The numbers "1" to "216553" (think ZIP codes, and how a poor hash took down msn.com ^{🕗archive})
• 216,553 "random" (i.e. type 4 uuid) GUIDs

• DJB2
• DJB2a (variant using xor rather than +)
• FNV-1 (32-bit)
• FNV-1a (32-bit)
• SDBM
• CRC32
• Murmur2 (32-bit)
• SuperFastHash

• The LoseLose algorithm (where hash = hash+character) is truly awful. Everything collides into the same 1,375 buckets
• SuperFastHash is fast, with things looking pretty scattered; by my goodness the number collisions. I'm hoping the guy who ported it got something wrong; it's pretty bad
• CRC32 is pretty good. Slower, and a 1k lookup table

Or as a Hilbert Map (XKCD is always relevant):

The FNV-1a algorithm is:

And I really, really hope there's something wrong with the SuperFastHash algorithm I found; it's too bad to be as popular as it is.

Update: From the MurmurHash3 homepage on Google:

GUIDs are designed to be unique, not random

Even the Version 4 GUID algorithm is not guaranteed to be unpredictable, because the algorithm does not specify the quality of the random number generator. The Wikipedia article for GUID contains primary research which suggests that future and previous GUIDs can be predicted based on knowledge of the random number generator state, since the generator is not cryptographically strong.

• A list of 216,553 English words ^{🕗archive}(in lowercase)
• The numbers "1" to "216553" (think ZIP codes, and how a poor hash took down msn.com ^{🕗archive})
• 216,553 "random" (i.e. type 4 uuid) GUIDs

• DJB2
• DJB2a (variant using xor rather than +)
• FNV-1 (32-bit)
• FNV-1a (32-bit)
• SDBM
• CRC32
• Murmur2 (32-bit)
• SuperFastHash

• The LoseLose algorithm (where hash = hash+character) is truly awful. Everything collides into the same 1,375 buckets
• SuperFastHash is fast, with things looking pretty scattered; by my goodness the number collisions. I'm hoping the guy who ported it got something wrong; it's pretty bad
• CRC32 is pretty good. Slower, and a 1k lookup table

Or as a Hilbert Map (XKCD is always relevant):

The FNV-1a algorithm is:

And I really, really hope there's something wrong with the SuperFastHash algorithm I found; it's too bad to be as popular as it is.

Update: From the MurmurHash3 homepage on Google:

GUIDs are designed to be unique, not random

Even the Version 4 GUID algorithm is not guaranteed to be unpredictable, because the algorithm does not specify the quality of the random number generator. The Wikipedia article for GUID contains primary research which suggests that future and previous GUIDs can be predicted based on knowledge of the random number generator state, since the generator is not cryptographically strong.

• A list of 216,553 English words ^{🕗archive}(in lowercase)
• The numbers "1" to "216553" (think ZIP codes, and how a poor hash took down msn.com ^{🕗archive})
• 216,553 "random" (i.e. type 4 uuid) GUIDs

Except when hashing number strings ("1", "2", ..., "216553") (for example, zip codes), where patterns begin to emerge in most of the hashing algorithms:

• A list of 216,553 English words ^{🕗archive}(in lowercase)
• The numbers "1" to "216553" (think ZIP codes, and how a poor hash took down msn.com ^{🕗archive})
• 216,553 "random" (i.e. type 4 uuid) GUIDs

Except when hashing number strings ("1", "2", ..., "216553") (for example, zip codes), where patterns begin to emerge in most of the hashing algorithms: