4 ms·
In which use cases is the asymptotic cycles per byte relevant compared to the small case performance? I mostly use hashes as part of signing/verifying small me
by remcob 9y ago
In which use cases is the asymptotic cycles per byte relevant compared to the small case performance?
I mostly use hashes as part of signing/verifying small messages, say an 80 byte JWT, a Blockchain transaction, a certificate, an TLS/SSH packet, etc. Besides hashing large files (which I rarely do), I don't see where I would reach asymptotic performance, or even use tree-hashing.
SHA3's block size is 200 bytes, KangarooTwelve's is, if I'm not mistaken, 8192? I'm more worried about not even filling the first block :)
- baby 9y ago> I mostly use hashes as part of signing/verifying small messages, say an 80 byte JWT, a Blockchain transaction, a certificate, an TLS/SSH packet, etc. Besides hashing large files (which I rarely do), I don't see where I would reach asymptotic performance, or even use tree-hashing. The number I used is definitely not the best one. But I believe it applies to you as you're not hashing a lot of bytes so you will not see much of a speed difference between hash functions. > SHA3's block size is 200 bytes, KangarooTwelve's is, if I'm not mistaken, 8192? I'm more worried about not even filling the first block :) They have the same block size :o rather 8192 is the threshold before you start using the tree hashing mode. This way if you want to hash small messages you do not get a penalty from using KangarooTwelve! It's all good :)