4 ms·

How does it compare against xxhash?

by doovd 5y ago

unsigner 5y ago
xxhash is not suitable for cryptographic purposes, but much faster.
- kebman 5y ago
  I assume MD5 is in there too now. Just out of curiosity, what are the most common use cases for non-cryptographic hash functions?
  - adkadskhj 5y ago
    Hash Map/Set keys is a common one, for example.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    MD5 isn't particularly fast. Basic non-vector BLAKE3 beats it, and SHA1 beats it by even more.
    - kebman 5y ago
      Yes, I'm already aware of that, thank you. Could you please expand upon what the main use cases are for non-cryptographic hashes?
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Yes, I'm already aware of that, thank you. Oh. Well you said "in there too now" so I thought you were saying it was like xxhash in being insecure and fast. Even if that wasn't your intent, I wanted to make it clear to other people. > Could you please expand upon what the main use cases are for non-cryptographic hashes? Very fast hashes are good for hash maps, or even critical for them. That covers a huge amount of uses. And judging by the list on xxhash's website, a bunch of file transfer programs use it as well as bloom filter implementations, along with the databases that are probably using it for various maps.
        kebman 5y ago
        Cool! I did make a duplicate file finder once. Seems I'll have to update it with this algo then! Thanks for mentioning it! :D
loeg 5y ago
Xxhash is a non-cryptographic hash and is much faster.
chronogram 5y ago
xxHash is not cryptographic, whereas BLAKE3 is. You can use the former for things such as file integrity from errors checking, and the latter for file integrity from malicious intent checking. Or, one is for the file system and the other is for the internet. You should use something altogether slower like bcrypt for passwords though, because then you don't want to have speed in case someone has a copy of your database with a million passwords and tries to dictionary attack those million.
memco 5y ago
I like to check smhasher for comparison of many hash implementations: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher https://github.com/rurban/smhasher. It’s a bit clunky to search for the exact items you want to compare, but there’s lots of data and a good summary under the table.

How does it compare against xxhash?

by doovd 5y ago

How does it compare against xxhash?

unsigner 5y ago

xxhash is not suitable for cryptographic purposes, but much faster.

kebman 5y ago
I assume MD5 is in there too now. Just out of curiosity, what are the most common use cases for non-cryptographic hash functions?
- adkadskhj 5y ago
  Hash Map/Set keys is a common one, for example.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  MD5 isn't particularly fast. Basic non-vector BLAKE3 beats it, and SHA1 beats it by even more.
  - kebman 5y ago
    Yes, I'm already aware of that, thank you. Could you please expand upon what the main use cases are for non-cryptographic hashes?
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Yes, I'm already aware of that, thank you. Oh. Well you said "in there too now" so I thought you were saying it was like xxhash in being insecure and fast. Even if that wasn't your intent, I wanted to make it clear to other people. > Could you please expand upon what the main use cases are for non-cryptographic hashes? Very fast hashes are good for hash maps, or even critical for them. That covers a huge amount of uses. And judging by the list on xxhash's website, a bunch of file transfer programs use it as well as bloom filter implementations, along with the databases that are probably using it for various maps.
      - kebman 5y ago
        Cool! I did make a duplicate file finder once. Seems I'll have to update it with this algo then! Thanks for mentioning it! :D

loeg 5y ago

Xxhash is a non-cryptographic hash and is much faster.

chronogram 5y ago

xxHash is not cryptographic, whereas BLAKE3 is. You can use the former for things such as file integrity from errors checking, and the latter for file integrity from malicious intent checking. Or, one is for the file system and the other is for the internet. You should use something altogether slower like bcrypt for passwords though, because then you don't want to have speed in case someone has a copy of your database with a million passwords and tries to dictionary attack those million.

memco 5y ago

I like to check smhasher for comparison of many hash implementations: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher https://github.com/rurban/smhasher. It’s a bit clunky to search for the exact items you want to compare, but there’s lots of data and a good summary under the table.