3 ms·
Interesting to see this, when just a few days ago we had another "new fast hash" item on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19357895 https://n
by jfk13 8y ago
Interesting to see this, when just a few days ago we had another "new fast hash" item on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19357895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19357895.
Anyone have a TL;DR regarding how these two compare?
- Cyan4973 8y agowyhash is a close relative to mumhashv2, and feature approximately the same performance strength and weaknesses.
- JanecekPetr 8y agoHere's the smhasher output for XXH3 on an i9: https://pastebin.com/ryLN24Qy https://pastebin.com/ryLN24Qy, the wyhash has its output in its readme. TLDR: XXH3 uses less cycles per key, by about 30%. The real throughput / latency need a more equal and thorough benchmark of both, though.
- rurban 8y agoWorking on it tomorrow. This just got in today. I expect xxh3 to beat everybody on long keys, and because it uses optimized intrinsics it should be close to the optimized th1a variants. wyhash is purely portable code.
- rurban 8y agoResults are now at smhasher. I had to fix all the MSVC issues first. wyhash still is the recommended hash function: portable and lowest cycles/hash. However xxxh3 is spectacularly fast, for small and esp. large key sizes. This is now the recommended hash for file or db digests. String hash table stats not yet done, there FNV1A is still the recommendation, with safe collision handling.