What is a good Hash function? I saw a lot of hash function and applications in my data structures courses in college, but I mostly got that it's pretty hard to make a good hash function. As a rule of thumb to avoid collisions my professor said that:

```
function Hash(key)
return key mod PrimeNumber
end
```

(mod is the % operator in C and similar languages)

with the prime number to be the size of the hash table. I get that is a somewhat good function to avoid collisions and a fast one, but how can I make a better one? Is there better hash functions for string keys against numeric keys?

For doing "normal" hash table lookups on basically any kind of data - this one by Paul Hsieh is the best I've ever used.

http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/hash.html

If you care about cryptographically secure or anything else more advanced, then YMMV. If you just want a kick ass general purpose hash function for a hash table lookup, then this is what you're looking for.

There's no such thing as a “good hash function” for universal hashes (ed. yes, I know there's such a thing as “universal hashing” but that's not what I meant). Depending on the context different criteria determine the quality of a hash. Two people already mentioned SHA. This is a cryptographic hash and it isn't at all good for hash tables which you probably mean.

Hash tables have very different requirements. But still, finding a good hash function universally is hard because different data types expose different information that can be hashed. As a rule of thumb it is good to consider

allinformation a type holds equally. This is not always easy or even possible. For reasons of statistics (and hence collision), it is also important to generate a good spread over the problem space, i.e. all possible objects. This means that when hashing numbers between 100 and 1050 it's no good to let the most significant digit play a big part in the hash because for ~ 90% of the objects, this digit will be 0. It's far more important to let the last three digits determine the hash.Similarly, when hashing strings it's important to consider all characters – except when it's known in advance that the first three characters of all strings will be the same; considering these then is a waste.

This is actually one of the cases where I advise to read what Knuth has to say in

The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 3. Another good read is Julienne Walker's The Art of Hashing.There are two major purposes of hashing functions:

It's impossible to recommend a hash without knowing what you're using it for.

If you're just making a hash table in a program, then you don't need to worry about how reversible or hackable the algorithm is... SHA-1 or AES is completely unnecessary for this, you'd be better off using a variation of FNV. FNV achieves better dispersion (and thus fewer collisions) than a simple prime mod like you mentioned, and it's more adaptable to varying input sizes.

If you're using the hashes to hide and authenticate public information (such as hashing a password, or a document), then you should use one of the major hashing algorithms vetted by public scrutiny. The Hash Function Lounge is a good place to start.

This is an example of a good one and also an example of why you would never want to write one. It is a Fowler / Noll / Vo (FNV) Hash which is equal parts computer science genius and pure voodoo:

Edit:

I'd say that the main rule of thumb is not to roll your own. Try to use something that has been thoroughly tested, e.g., SHA-1 or something along those lines.

A good hash function has the following properties:

Given a hash of a message it is computationally infeasible for an attacker to find another message such that their hashes are identical.

Given a pair of message, m' and m, it is computationally infeasible to find two such that that h(m) = h(m')

The two cases are

notthe same. In the first case, there is a pre-existing hash that you're trying to find a collision for. In the second case, you're trying to findanytwo messages that collide. The second task is significantly easier due to the birthday "paradox."Where performance is not that great an issue, you should always use a secure hash function. There are very clever attacks that can be performed by forcing collisions in a hash. If you use something strong from the outset, you'll secure yourself against these.

Don't use MD5 or SHA-1 in new designs. Most cryptographers, me included, would consider them broken. The principle source of weakness in both of these designs is that the second property, which I outlined above, does not hold for these constructions. If an attacker can generate two messages, m and m', that both hash to the same value they can use these messages against you. SHA-1 and MD5 also suffer from message extension attacks, which can fatally weaken your application if you're not careful.

A more modern hash such as Whirpool is a better choice. It does not suffer from these message extension attacks and uses the same mathematics as AES uses to prove security against a variety of attacks.

Hope that helps!

What you're saying here is you want to have one that uses has collision resistance. Try using SHA-2. Or try using a (good) block cipher in a one way compression function (never tried that before), like AES in Miyaguchi-Preenel mode. The problem with that is that you need to:

1) have an IV. Try using the first 256 bits of the fractional parts of Khinchin's constant or something like that. 2) have a padding scheme. Easy. Barrow it from a hash like MD5 or SHA-3 (Keccak [pronounced 'ket-chak']). If you don't care about the security (a few others said this), look at FNV or lookup2 by Bob Jenkins (actually I'm the first one who reccomends lookup2) Also try MurmurHash, it's fast (check this: .16 cpb).