3 ms·

It's a custom solution, but nothing special just incremental hashing for large files. I took off the shelf wasm crypto libraries to compare it, but the leading

• throawayonthe 5mo ago
  can we see?
  • theultdev 5mo ago
    yeah check back at the end of the day. will try to rip it out of the project and put it in a standalone benchmark.
    • titzer 5mo ago
      It'd be interesting to compare it to a SHA-256 algorithm that uses Wasm simd: https://github.com/ChrisWhealy/wasm_sha256 https://github.com/ChrisWhealy/wasm_sha256
      • theultdev 5mo ago
        Noted, will add that. Last time I tried https://github.com/Daninet/hash-wasm https://github.com/Daninet/hash-wasm edit: I focus on browsers, that's wasm but not for browser envs. ---- https://theultdev.github.io/web-sha256-benchmark https://theultdev.github.io/web-sha256-benchmark https://github.com/TheUltDev/web-sha256-benchmark https://github.com/TheUltDev/web-sha256-benchmark seems it is chrome wasm that is slow. asmjs is about the same speed in chrome and firefox (with asm optimizations still enabled) but wasm is slow as hell in chrome, asm still better. side note: someone mentioned native crypto.subtle, but that doesn't have incremental hashing so can't use it for large files. however I do use it in practice for smaller files.