Hacker News Reader

Comment by loeg | Hacker News Reader

How does performance compare with XXhash, possibly the current leader in the non-cryptographic hash category?

XXhash is only fast with digest workloads, not hash tables. There the hash function needs to be fast and small, XXhash is too big and trashes the icache.

The current leaders are on my smhasher site, https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/

Thank you!

The benchmarks on the xxHash Github page were done on a 32-bit system using an old Visual C++ compiler. Of course you can beat hash functions that were explicitly designed for modern 64-bit architectures. The Core 2 lacks the CRC instruction introduced by the SSE 4.2 extension, which is the main reason Google wrote their hashes.

xxHash has a 64-bit version.

All modern hashes are designed for 64-bit architectures and some even rely on recent instruction sets. So a benchmark on an old 32-bit CPU isn't indicative of the performance you'll see on a modern processor, e.g. Metrohash will definitely not be 5x slower than xxHash.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm asking for an apples-to-apples comparison here. Using one figure from a random CPU on github and comparing it to another figure from a different random CPU on github is not an apples to apples comparison.

I don't think anyone claimed xxhash would be 5x faster than metrohash. (Maybe you are getting the 5x number from metrohash's claim that it is 5x faster than siphash?)

Look at XXH64.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com