Bloom filters are good for search that does not scale
7 comments
·November 4, 2025susam
susam
I just noticed the m = 10007 value in my comment above and I thought I should clarify it. The number of bits per bloom filter does not need to be a prime number if the hash functions have uniform distribution. Murmur2 hash functions do have uniform distribution, so m was not chosen to be prime in order to reduce collisions in the Bloom filter's bit positions. The reason for using a prime value was more mundane.
This was a fairly large project, with roughly 3 million lines of C and C++ code which had numerous constants with special values defined throughout the code. So instead of using a less interesting number like 10000, I chose 10007 so that if we ever came across the value 10007 (decimal) or 0x2717 (hexadecimal) while inspecting a core dump in a debugger, we would immediately recognise it as the constant defining the number of bits per Bloom filter.
anonymars
Ha, collision avoidance all the way down
gkfasdfasdf
Interesting trick about the constant value, and thank you for the detailed write up!
MattPalmer1086
May be true for offline full text search, but not true for online string search.
I invented a very fast string search algorithm based on bloom filters. Our paper [1] was accepted to the Symposium of Experimental Algorithms 2024 [2]. Code can be found here [3].
[1] https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.S...
majke
Bing uses bloom filters for the most-recent index:
sanskarix
the beautiful thing about bloom filters is they let you say "definitely not here" without checking everything. that asymmetry is weirdly powerful for specific problems.
I've seen them save startups real money in caching layers - checking "did we already process this event" before hitting the database. false positives are fine because you just check the database anyway, but true negatives save you thousands of queries.
the trick is recognizing when false positives don't hurt you. most engineers learn about them in theory but never find that practical use case where they're actually the right tool. same with skip lists and a bunch of other algorithms - brilliant for 2% of problems, overkill for the rest.
When I worked at RSA over a decade ago, we developed Bloom filter-based indexing to speed up querying on a proprietary database that was specialised for storing petabytes of network events and packet data. I implemented the core Bloom filter-based indexer based on MurmurHash2 functions and I was quite proud of the work I did back then. The resulting improvement in query performance looked impressive to our customers. I remember the querying speed went up from roughly 49,000 records per second to roughly 1,490,000 records per second, so nearly a 30-fold increase.
However, the performance gain is not surprising at all since Bloom filters allow the querying engine to skip large blocks of data with certainty when the blocks do not contain the target data. False negatives are impossible. False positives occur but the rate of false positives can be made very small with well-chosen parameters and trade-offs.
With 4 hash functions (k = 4), 10007 bits per bloom filter (m = 10007) and a new bloom filter for every 1000 records (n = 1000), we achieved a theoretical false-positive rate of only 1.18% ((1 - e(-k * n / m)) ^ k = 0.0118). In practice, over a period of 5 years, we found that the actual false positive rate varied between 1.13% and 1.29%.
The only downside of a false positive is that it makes the query engine read a data block unnecessarily to verify whether the target data is present. This affects performance but not correctness; much like how CPU branch misprediction affects performance but not correctness.
A 30-fold increase in querying speed with just 1.25 kB of overhead per data block of 1000 records (each block roughly 1 MB to 2 MB in size) was, in my view, an excellent trade-off. It made a lot of difference to the customer experience, turning what used to be a 2 minute wait for query results into a wait of just about 5 seconds, or in larger queries, reducing a 30 minute wait to about 1 minute.