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

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.