3 ms·
I'm not seeing any benchmarks: since they tout speed as a major selling point, that surprises me. Edit: For instance, the blog post mentions being inspirsed by
by nbpoole 16y ago
I'm not seeing any benchmarks: since they tout speed as a major selling point, that surprises me.
Edit: For instance, the blog post mentions being inspirsed by MurmurHash, which touts its performance on its site along with benchmarks (http://sites.google.com/site/murmurhash/ http://sites.google.com/site/murmurhash/):
OneAtATime - 354.163715 mb/sec
FNV - 443.668038 mb/sec
SuperFastHash - 985.335173 mb/sec
lookup3 - 988.080652 mb/sec
MurmurHash 1.0 - 1363.293480 mb/sec
MurmurHash 2.0 - 2056.885653 mb/sec
In fact, it looks like the author of MurmurHash also developed a test suite for hash functions which includes performance testing: http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/wiki/SMHasher http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/wiki/SMHasher
- andrewcooke 16y agoand i'm not seeing any definition of what the hash is, or why it should be any good, apart from the code...
- elq 16y agolooking at the code, they've optimized for speed. And they also said - > We decided to optimize for speed rather than simplicity and even included special cases for short inputs.
- nbpoole 16y agoRight, I understand that. I'm just surprised that they aren't showing off benchmarks or statistics to quantify the performance gains they're seeing.