[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hash computation and TFB
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Hash computation and TFB |
Date: |
Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:26:48 +0100 |
On 6 Aug 2013, at 15:43, Stefan Bidi <address@hidden> wrote:
> Richard,
> Back when I was having a look at hash functions, I actually chose Jenkins'
> lookup3 as a good replacement. It is also public domain, and has a big and
> little endian alternative, giving the same results. It is still very fast
> (much faster than our current one-at-a-time function).
>
> The reason I shied away from MurmurHash is because it is not very efficient
> on big-endian machines (according to the website), and it only really
> optimized for x86 compatible processors. I also prefer Jenkins' SpookyHash
> over MurmurHash3 (I just understand the implementation better).
When I picked what hash to try, I just did a survey of comparisons reported on
the web (I'm surely not competant to judge the maths msyself).
While MurmurHash2 was supposed to be slow on big endian machines, this was not
reported to be the case for MurmurHash3, and I saw one report saying that while
SpookyHash was fast, it didn't produce as good a distribution as MurmurHash3 or
Lookup3 (and Lookup3 was slower than MurmurHash3). ie. I picked what appeared
to be the best option 1st quarter 2013
Probably all of them are good enough.
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, (continued)
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, Luboš Doležel, 2013/08/06
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, David Chisnall, 2013/08/06
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, Luboš Doležel, 2013/08/06
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, David Chisnall, 2013/08/06
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, Luboš Doležel, 2013/08/06
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, Stefan Bidi, 2013/08/06
- Re: Hash computation and TFB, Luboš Doležel, 2013/08/06
Re: Hash computation and TFB, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2013/08/06