You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I see nothing wrong with it if it passes SMHasher3, but it's also not radically different than other hashes - it's just smooshed down into four lines.
Got me thinking, how compact could you compress your hash function? Maybe you could place it in your readme for those who want to just copy and paste the hash function with minimum dependencies and don't care about speed.
And if so, how would it compare against th64
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It's a long term objective to separate xxhash.h into multiple smaller sub-modules, in order to allow implementers to pick and choose just the parts they want. It will require time, which is in short supply.
I haven't heard about th64 before. It looks similar to murmurhash3, mildly obfuscated by the use of very compact coding convention.
Does it have to be a fast implementation? I think the idea of small copy/paste functions is that it's suitable for those who are simply aiming to get something going with minimum dependencies rather than something that is fast. So that could include small utility functions that run occasionally to embedded systems.
I think for now, just xxh32 and xx64 would be ideal as a minimum as that's seems to be whats most used out there, but you could always wrap it in <details><summary></summary></details> tag which is supported in github if you are worried about how large it would take in your readme. (But you may want to expose at least xxhash64 as a nice 'see how simple it is' to the public. Much like how the th64 author did for his.
Basically according to author of SMHasher he said that https://github.com/tidwall/th64 version is similar to hashes like yours but compressed to a few lines (Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40877460) .
Got me thinking, how compact could you compress your hash function? Maybe you could place it in your readme for those who want to just copy and paste the hash function with minimum dependencies and don't care about speed.
And if so, how would it compare against th64
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: