Switch to murmurhash3 to route documents to shards.

We currently use the djb2 hash function in order to compute the shard a
document should go to. Unfortunately this hash function is not very
sophisticated and you can sometimes hit adversarial cases, such as numeric ids
on 33 shards.

Murmur3 generates hashes with a better distribution, which should avoid the
adversarial cases.

Here are some examples of how 100000 incremental ids are distributed to shards
using either djb2 or murmur3.

5 shards:
Murmur3: [19933, 19964, 19940, 20030, 20133]
DJB:     [20000, 20000, 20000, 20000, 20000]

3 shards:
Murmur3: [33185, 33347, 33468]
DJB:     [30100, 30000, 39900]

33 shards:
Murmur3: [2999, 3096, 2930, 2986, 3070, 3093, 3023, 3052, 3112, 2940, 3036, 2985, 3031, 3048, 3127, 2961, 2901, 3105, 3041, 3130, 3013, 3035, 3031, 3019, 3008, 3022, 3111, 3086, 3016, 2996, 3075, 2945, 2977]
DJB:     [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 900, 900, 900, 900, 1000, 1000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 9100, 9100, 9100, 9100, 9000, 9000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]

Even if djb2 looks ideal in some cases (5 shards), the fact that the
distribution of its hashes has some patterns can raise issues with some shard
counts (eg. 3, or even worse 33).

Some tests have been modified because they relied on implementation details of
the routing hash function.

This change only affects indices that are created on or after elasticsearch 1.5.0.
How would it work? Would you add a `Version` argument to the `HashFunction` interface so that it knows the version when the index has been created?

Agreed that it should barf if the setting to use the type is set, instead of ignoring it.

At first I didn't make the hash function configurable because I couldn't think of use-cases for it? And I am a bit afraid it could end up like codecs: the ability to customize the behavior sounds nice but in the end it makes bw compat management more complicated?