<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Sep 7, 2007, at 0:34, Venkatesh KS wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; ">memcached supports variable length keys. But I am just curious as to why not use md5 instead of lengthy keys. The keylen requirements for my cache (which is very similar to squid proxy) is very high and I am planning on using md5. I will read up to find out about the false positive probability. But going md5 way will certainly cap the keylen to 16bytes.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>You certainly can, but md5(``somestring'') is a lot more costly to compute than ``somestring''</DIV><BR><DIV> <SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>-- </DIV><DIV>Dustin Sallings</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>