3 ms·
Depending on the length of what you're hashing, either one of the cut down Siphashes or Blake3 are reasonably fast. The Siphashes are too short I think for gen
by Vecr 2y ago
Depending on the length of what you're hashing, either one of the cut down Siphashes or Blake3 are reasonably fast.
The Siphashes are too short I think for general use, but when cut down and keyed they're okay for a hashmap.
- rurban 2y agoSiphash and Blake3 or NOT reasonably fast, they are dirt slow. They should not be used in hash tables at all. Fighting DOS attacks can only be done with detecting DOS attacks, which is much cheaper than using a slow, better hash function. Count the collisions. And then either stop the attack, or fallback to a tree.
- Vecr 2y ago1) they're not that slow, and 2) I'm talking about the cut down versions of Siphash
- rurban 2y agoThey are. See https://rurban.github.io/smhasher/ https://rurban.github.io/smhasher/ Fast hashes are around 20.000 MiB/sec, blake2 around 350, siphash13 1800. That's insanely slow, for no benefits.