Bug 1828560 Comment 4 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
(In reply to Nicolas B. Pierron [:nbp] from comment #3)
> The point of a bloom filter is not to be correct, as false positive are acceptable.
> Thus is technically not invalid to ignore some of the bits.
> 
> Is there any other reasoning behind the "part 1" ?

the code was using `KeySize - 3` bits (not `KeySize - 3` **bytes**), instead of `KeySize` bits, which means the only 1/8 of the array was used.
Revision 1 by
on 
(In reply to Nicolas B. Pierron [:nbp] from comment #3)
> The point of a bloom filter is not to be correct, as false positive are acceptable.
> Thus is technically not invalid to ignore some of the bits.
> 
> Is there any other reasoning behind the "part 1" ?

the code was using `KeySize - 3` bits, instead of `KeySize` bits, which means the only 1/8 of the array was used.
Revision 2 by
on 
(In reply to Nicolas B. Pierron [:nbp] from comment #3)
> The point of a bloom filter is not to be correct, as false positive are acceptable.
> Thus is technically not invalid to ignore some of the bits.
> 
> Is there any other reasoning behind the "part 1" ?

the code was using `2 ** (KeySize - 3)` bits, instead of `2 ** KeySize` bits, which means the only 1/8 of the array was used.

Back to Bug 1828560 Comment 4