3 ms·
>@Orbling, for implementation of a hash dictionary. So collisions should be kept to a minimal, but it has no security purpose at all. – Earlz SHA-1 is very fas
by bennysaurus 14y ago
>@Orbling, for implementation of a hash dictionary. So collisions should be kept to a minimal, but it has no security purpose at all. – Earlz
SHA-1 is very fast though so it is a good point for comparison.
- IsTom 14y agoSHA-1 was designed as a cryptographic hash functions, they are puprposely slow. No, SHA-1 is not as fast as functions from the article.
- pjscott 14y agoYou've got it backwards; cryptographic hash functions are designed to be as fast as possible without giving up their cryptographic properties. If you need a slow hash (e.g. for password storage), you use something like bcrypt that's designed to be slow.
- masklinn 14y ago> SHA-1 is very fast though SHA-1 is fast for a cryptographic hash function, but it's orders of magnitude slower than "hashmap" hashes. crc32 is more than an order of magnitude faster, and as you can see in TFA's table it's ~half the speed of the best non-crypto hashes.