I posed a potential problem for a job interview. Given the following function, generate another key that has the same shard:
In other words, give “users/71” and a prefix of “orders/654”, generate a key that would be placed on the same shard as “users/71”. The answer in this case can be: “orders/654-vaueaa”.
In order to answer the question, we need to understand what is going on here. The function above is a fancy way to extract 16 bits of information from the key using a cryptographically hash function. MD5 is no longer considered secured, but given the fact that I’m needing just 16 bits, that is not an issue. The code above is slightly more complex than needed, I could simplify it to this and have the same effect (but not the same result, mind):
The need to generate a matching shard id is another way to say that we need a hash collision. Given that the key space is 2^16, and that we can assume that any mutation to the key will result effectively random changes to the result, we can simply generate different keys and try to see if they match. Here is a simple way to do so:
We are effectively throwing a dice and seeing if this match. So it is a probability game to wait until we have a collision. The actual implementation isn’t that important, what is interesting is to talk about the implications here:
- Are there better ways to go about doing something like this? Not really, given that MD5 isn’t that broken.
- How much time will it take to generate a shard id match? The answer, usually around 64K tries. But why is interesting. The birthday attack issues don’t play here, because we don’t need to match to multiple items, just one. So we role the dice and see if we match on the value.
- Can we speed this up? Using a different hash function would probably help, yes.
- What other ways do we have to handle this? Different shard id generation would allow much better alternative.
The last question is where we get into more interesting details about system design, ergonomics of the choices we make and get to see how the candidate actually thinks.
More posts in "Challenge" series:
- (16 Jun 2021) Detecting livelihood in a distributed cluster
- (21 Apr 2020) Generate matching shard id–answer
- (20 Apr 2020) Generate matching shard id
- (02 Jan 2020) Spot the bug in the stream
- (28 Sep 2018) The loop that leaks–Answer
- (27 Sep 2018) The loop that leaks
- (03 Apr 2018) The invisible concurrency bug–Answer
- (02 Apr 2018) The invisible concurrency bug
- (31 Jan 2018) Find the bug in the fix–answer
- (30 Jan 2018) Find the bug in the fix
- (19 Jan 2017) What does this code do?
- (26 Jul 2016) The race condition in the TCP stack, answer
- (25 Jul 2016) The race condition in the TCP stack
- (28 Apr 2015) What is the meaning of this change?
- (26 Sep 2013) Spot the bug
- (27 May 2013) The problem of locking down tasks…
- (17 Oct 2011) Minimum number of round trips
- (23 Aug 2011) Recent Comments with Future Posts
- (02 Aug 2011) Modifying execution approaches
- (29 Apr 2011) Stop the leaks
- (23 Dec 2010) This code should never hit production
- (17 Dec 2010) Your own ThreadLocal
- (03 Dec 2010) Querying relative information with RavenDB
- (29 Jun 2010) Find the bug
- (23 Jun 2010) Dynamically dynamic
- (28 Apr 2010) What killed the application?
- (19 Mar 2010) What does this code do?
- (04 Mar 2010) Robust enumeration over external code
- (16 Feb 2010) Premature optimization, and all of that…
- (12 Feb 2010) Efficient querying
- (10 Feb 2010) Find the resource leak
- (21 Oct 2009) Can you spot the bug?
- (18 Oct 2009) Why is this wrong?
- (17 Oct 2009) Write the check in comment
- (15 Sep 2009) NH Prof Exporting Reports
- (02 Sep 2009) The lazy loaded inheritance many to one association OR/M conundrum
- (01 Sep 2009) Why isn’t select broken?
- (06 Aug 2009) Find the bug fixes
- (26 May 2009) Find the bug
- (14 May 2009) multi threaded test failure
- (11 May 2009) The regex that doesn’t match
- (24 Mar 2009) probability based selection
- (13 Mar 2009) C# Rewriting
- (18 Feb 2009) write a self extracting program
- (04 Sep 2008) Don't stop with the first DSL abstraction
- (02 Aug 2008) What is the problem?
- (28 Jul 2008) What does this code do?
- (26 Jul 2008) Find the bug fix
- (05 Jul 2008) Find the deadlock
- (03 Jul 2008) Find the bug
- (02 Jul 2008) What is wrong with this code
- (05 Jun 2008) why did the tests fail?
- (27 May 2008) Striving for better syntax
- (13 Apr 2008) calling generics without the generic type
- (12 Apr 2008) The directory tree
- (24 Mar 2008) Find the version
- (21 Jan 2008) Strongly typing weakly typed code
- (28 Jun 2007) Windsor Null Object Dependency Facility