# 🧹 broomfilter 🧹
> *Sweeping away your certainty, one hash at a time.*
A bloom filter implementation in Rust. Named `broomfilter` because it sweeps
through your data and tells you "yeah, *probably*" with the confidence of someone
who definitely didn't study for the exam.
---
## 🤔 What is this?
A bloom filter is a probabilistic data structure that can tell you:
- ❌ **"Definitely not in the set"** — 100% accurate, take it to the bank
- 🤷 **"Probably in the set"** — maybe, who knows, trust issues
Think of it as that friend who says "I'm *pretty sure* I locked the door."
You can trust them when they say they didn't, but when they say they did...
you might want to go check.
### 🧹 How the broom sweeps
```
item ──→ [ hash hash hash ] ──→ flip bits in the array
🧹💨
query ──→ [ hash hash hash ] ──→ check bits
├── all set? → "probably yes" 🤷
└── any unset? → "definitely no" ❌
```
---
## 💡 Why does this exist?
Because I wanted to learn what a bloom filter actually is instead of just
nodding along when someone mentions one in a meeting. Turns out it's a big
array of bits and some hashing. Who knew? (Everyone. Everyone knew.) 🧹
---
## 🚀 Usage
```rust
use broomfilter::Filter;
// Create a filter with 2^14 bits, optimized for 10,000 items
let mut filter = Filter::new(14, 10_000).unwrap();
// Insert some things 🧹
filter.insert("hello");
filter.insert("world");
// Check for things
assert!(filter.contains("hello")); // true — probably 🤷
assert!(!filter.contains("goodbye")); // false — definitely ❌
```
---
## 🏗️ Status
> ⚠️ **Work in progress** — handle with care (or don't, I'm a README not a cop)
It works, it has benchmarks, it *probably* won't eat your data. But then again,
the whole point of a bloom filter is that you can never be 100% sure about anything.
| Insert items | ✅ Swept in |
| Check membership | ✅ Probably |
| False positives | ✅ It's a feature |
| False negatives | 🚫 Impossible (finally, some certainty) |
| Delete items | 🧹 Nope, the broom only sweeps one way |
---
## 📜 License
MIT — do whatever you want with it, just don't blame me when
`contains()` lies to you. That's a feature, not a bug. 🧹
