Comment by grupthink

Would it be better to store the hash of each output into 3 different arrays?

e.g. currently, it's doing:

    [input] -> [3 hashes] -> [single storage]

but, I'm wondering if it's better to do:

    [input] 
    -> [hash a] -> [storage a]
    -> [hash b] -> [storage b]
    -> [hash c] -> [storage c]

...this way, the output of the 3 hashes don't affect each other during the set and membership-check. I wonder how that would affect how much more data you can store. I'm sure someone has considered this.