3 ms·

I feel like I'm missing an enormous amount of context here, and I can't be the only one. How much better is it than old standbys like hashpjw, FNV1A, or djb's

• cb321 1y ago
  I'm not sure I can answer your other questions like copyrights & secrets, but the "how is it faster?" is actually pretty easy and worth knowing/saying to anyone unaware - the hash you present is "1 byte at a time". All fast modern functions competing in this space try to do at least 8 bytes at a time, but perhaps a whole 64B cache line. They do tend to have high "startup/finalize" overheads, though which can matter (can easily be dominant) for use in hash tables with modest key lengths instead of hashing large files. The rest of this comment is kind of ELI5 (I hope!) not because I think @kragen needs that, but because maybe other readers will benefit and I know he leans towards long form text, and @jandrewrogers basically alludes to this stuff in his comment opening this sub-thread. EDIT: as do a few other posters here like at least @curiouscoding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44012740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44012740 ______ As for benefit - that always depends on "Compared to what??" in your use cases, what CPU you expect things to run on, and so much else. As just a few examples - last I knew, the SMHasher performance tests blocked inlining which already makes them unrealistic comparisons, esp. with really tiny code footprint ones like your FNV1a example. Your higher level table structure might also be caching the hash code for table resize/as a comparison prefix for lookups. So, how much you have to hash at all may depend on doing that, predictability of table sizes, etc. How effective the comparison prefix idea even is can depend upon how common long prefixes are in your key sets which my be literally unknown - could be pathnames from `find` with tons of prefix similarity or none at all. Furthermore, the entire culture of presentation of performance in this space is sadly "rate" - the reciprocal of what is easi(er) to reason about, namely "time". Why? "Time is additive". Even the headline here is "GB/s". Cycles/byte or ns/byte is just easier. You want to present a time equation with perHashCost + perByteCost*nBytes and both unknown coefficients if inferred from real-times on a modern time sharing OS probably have significant statistical variation. If there is a highly non-random distribution of kicks/competition/interferences, it will usually be easier to see in time kicks. The reciprocal transformation distorts everything. Anyway, a time cost equation (like Knuth v1-3 of days of yore!) also lets you easily compute the break-even string length when rate starts to dominate fixed overheads, namely nBytes_breakEven = perHashCost/perByteCost. It also lets you estimate an answer to your question of "when does this matter", if your strings are typically under 32B (I believe an early days limit to identifiers for many C compilers, but someone can correct me if that's wrong) and the perByteCost is 0.1 ns/byte (10 GB/s - just a round number), then break even (when per-hash starts to matters more) is 0.1*32 = 3.2 ns or 16..24 cpu cycles on most modern deployments. Said the other way, if your perHash overhead is 16..24 cycles and your hash througput is 10 GB/s, then you better hope your strings are longer than 32 bytes on average or you've probably made a bad choice. One way in which an equation fails is that it does oversimplify the performance profile even of this simple problem. That profile often has plateaus/cliffs at cache line size and integer size boundaries, but rates fare no better there. Even so, if you are presenting a bunch of hashes, a table sortable by perHash and perByte costs would be the best starting point for most evaluations where the slope is "just an average"/effective value. A plot is best, though.