2 ms·
Just to be 100% fair, they may want to retest against xxHash3 for that "fastest" claim as it's ~2.5x faster than xxHash that they benched against.
by huhtenberg 2y ago
Just to be 100% fair, they may want to retest against xxHash3 for that "fastest" claim as it's ~2.5x faster than xxHash that they benched against.
- vlovich123 2y agoTheir graph is just poorly labelled. It's against XX3. I even tried switching their benchmark harness from twox_hash to xxhash-rust which has SSE support - their benchmark harness doesn't show a major difference for xxhash-rust although maybe I somehow forgot to set native-cpu for the benchmark & it wasn't testing the right thing.
- CrendKing 2y agoAccording to my test, xxhash-rust does have significant edge over TwoX-Hash. However, it is still slower than GxHash. gxhash | 4 > 8300.74 | 8 > 16684.68 | 16 > 33121.69 | 32 > 38146.97 | 64 > 57805.72 | 128 > 49712.76 | 256 > 69277.29 | 512 > 88315.11 | 1024 > 97135.29 | 2048 > 98200.60 | 4096 > 104709.01 | 8192 > 108988.86 | 16384 > 110630.70 | 32768 > 111406.96 xxhash (twox_hash) | 4 > 1291.20 | 8 > 2579.19 | 16 > 6029.70 | 32 > 10281.18 | 64 > 15950.47 | 128 > 22031.84 | 256 > 17929.12 | 512 > 20728.87 | 1024 > 21683.24 | 2048 > 21679.94 | 4096 > 21732.89 | 8192 > 21748.57 | 16384 > 21534.84 | 32768 > 21703.27 xxhash (xxhash-rust) | 4 > 1968.26 | 8 > 3946.71 | 16 > 8030.94 | 32 > 13099.80 | 64 > 19073.49 | 128 > 23469.46 | 256 > 22909.73 | 512 > 33117.15 | 1024 > 42467.53 | 2048 > 54638.44 | 4096 > 63193.78 | 8192 > 68677.38 | 16384 > 71658.92 | 32768 > 71421.18