3 ms·
Again, ballpark numbers, but yes you might be right. From the sibling comment's benchmarks, it seems though that MD5 is indeed even faster than BLAKE3 (5.4 cycl
by lucb1e 6y ago
Again, ballpark numbers, but yes you might be right. From the sibling comment's benchmarks, it seems though that MD5 is indeed even faster than BLAKE3 (5.4 cycles/byte for blake3 vs 4.95 for md5).
- jcynix 6y agoI've been comparing other hashes to MD5 during the last few months to compare and identify large photos and movie files. My experience is that xxhash is much faster than good old MD5. You can find some numbers at it's site here: https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash
- lucb1e 6y agoThose are different kinds of algorithms. Something like CRC32, siphash, etc. are much faster than a hashing function meant to be cryptographically secure. They just don't have the same constraints. This xxHash claims it "successfully completes the SMHasher test suite" which is good in the same way that a PRNG passing randomness tests is good but not necessarily cryptographically secure. The table on the page you linked also says in the notes whether an algorithm was meant for cryptographic purposes, and indeed all of those are at the bottom by quite a margin.