3 ms·
If you want a fast hash function (and don't care about it's cryptographic properties), don't use a cryptographic hash function.
by richardwhiuk 3y ago
If you want a fast hash function (and don't care about it's cryptographic properties), don't use a cryptographic hash function.
- dralley 3y agoBLAKE3 is actually competitive with non-cryptographic hashes like crc32.
- oconnor663 3y agoTo be fair, it really depends on the platform. There's an argument to be made that platforms where you care about the difference are specifically the ones where BLAKE3 is slower (no SIMD, no threads).
- dralley 3y agoFair
- RaisingSpear 3y agoNot even close. CRC32 can easily run at >50GB/s single thread on this i7-12700K CPU (VPCLMULQDQ implementation). The BLAKE3 page claims around 7GB/s single thread. Fudging the figures a bit to cater to CPU differences, BLAKE3 is still a far cry from CRC32.
- dralley 3y agoYou're referring to the implementation that was on HN a month or two ago? There's nothing wrong with that, it's a fair comparison, but I'm talking about the existing common implementations.