-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 171
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Question]false positive rate #36
Comments
I recommend looking at the manuscript. The key difference regarding false positive rates is that bloom filters' false positive rate approaches 1 as a function of the number of elements, while a cuckoo filter's error rate caps out at a relatively small rate (often 1-5%) regardless of how full the structure becomes. The other disadvantage is that sketches cannot be merged or compared as concise representations of sets the way a bloom filter can, which eliminates a major use case for them. |
@MainHanzo , when you run bulk-insert-and-query.exe, the false positive rate is the column labeled "ε". When you run conext-table3.exe, the false positive rate is in the row labeled "false positive rate". |
@jbapple-cloudera @dnbaker Thank you for all your help. |
@MainHanzo Correct. Both cuckoo and bloom filters are sketch data structures, and a filled sketch data structure is often referred to as a sketch. Both bloom filters and cuckoo filters provide inexact set membership queries. However, bloom filters can approximate set operations by using bitwise |
Hello everyone, i am doing some research on the performance of the bloom filter, cuckoo filter and simd-block etc. And when i tried to compare the performance i found that the false positive rate of the cuckoo filter is not mentioned. So I would like to ask how much is the false positive rate of the cuckoo filter, how is the fp rate defined?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: