4 ms·
Good read to get a historical context. On the other hand in new code I'd most likely use SipHash: https://131002.net/siphash/ https://131002.net/siphash/ Sipha
by majke 13y ago
Good read to get a historical context. On the other hand in new code I'd most likely use SipHash: https://131002.net/siphash/ https://131002.net/siphash/
Siphash is simple, pretty fast, versatile and can be used in a way not vulnerable to hash collisions denial of service attacks (aka: hash flooding):
http://www.ocert.org/advisories/ocert-2011-003.html http://www.ocert.org/advisories/ocert-2011-003.html
- aktau 13y agoThanks for that! I myself always had MurmurHash (https://code.google.com/p/smhasher/wiki/MurmurHash3 https://code.google.com/p/smhasher/wiki/MurmurHash3) in mind, mainly because I liked the touted benefits (from the possibly biased main page) and it's worked out for me. Seems like I need to educate myself a bit more.
- packetslave 13y agoThere's also CityHash, which has some nice claimed performance numbers depending on your application. https://code.google.com/p/cityhash/ https://code.google.com/p/cityhash/ http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/121017-slides.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/121017-slides....