4 ms·
So, questions for people that know more than I: What's up with the 'passing' and 'failing' hashes in SMHasher3? Specifically, what happened to xxHash[1] to kic
by thadt 2y ago
So, questions for people that know more than I: What's up with the 'passing' and 'failing' hashes in SMHasher3?
Specifically, what happened to xxHash[1] to kick it down to the 'failing' category? I'm not certain about SMHasher's testing criteria, but comparing the benchmark numbers posed in Rain vs xxHash show xxH3 rather faster? Not that a have a personally vested intersted in xxHash, but it seems to be a rather widely used (e.g. RocksDB [2]) with a number of implementations - it would be useful to understand the criteria that make it no longer a passing SMHasher3 entry.
[1] https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash
[2] https://rocksdb.org/blog/2022/07/18/per-key-value-checksum.html https://rocksdb.org/blog/2022/07/18/per-key-value-checksum.h...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zimpenfish 2y ago> Specifically, what happened to xxHash to kick it down to the 'failing' category? Looking at [1], it seems to collisions (search for "!!!!!") [1] https://gitlab.com/fwojcik/smhasher3/-/blob/main/results/raw/XXH-64.txt https://gitlab.com/fwojcik/smhasher3/-/blob/main/results/raw...