[mjb]

It is cool, but that wikipedia article sure has an axe to grind. I'm not sure I'd agree with the "simpler" or the assertion that CH needs to store tokens. And the variant of rendezvous hashing that doesn't require O(N) computation for placement isn't definitely isn't much simpler! It's a cool technique, but that's not where I would go for a comparison.

From wiki: > Since the hash function is randomizing, each of the n sites is equally likely to receive the object O. Loads are uniform across the sites.

This is a really interesting topic of its own! The first sentence is correct, the second is asymptotically correct, but untrue in a lot of practical cases. It's very easy to overestimate the degree of uniformity you get from random allocation, especially where the number of "balls" isn't very large compared to the number of "bins". More here: https://brooker.co.za/blog/2018/01/01/balls-into-bins.html