Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#2How does performance compare with XXhash, possibly the current leader in the non-cryptographic hash category?
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#3How does performance compare with XXhash, possibly the current leader in the non-cryptographic hash category?
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.
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#4How does performance compare with XXhash, possibly the current leader in the non-cryptographic hash category?
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.
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#6This seems incredibly fast. Taking the benchmarks on the sites at face value, this seems like it's roughly twice as fast as xxHash.
I also appreciate this line in the README: "HighwayHash is not a general purpose cryptographic hash function (such as Blake2b, SHA-3 or SHA-2) and should not be used if strong collision resistance is required"
I am curious to know what the threshold for "strong collision resistance" is.
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#7Note that performance is strongly dependent on message size. My Cuckoo Cycle proof of work hashes roughly a billion 8-byte messages with the 'cryptographically strong' SipHash in 4 seconds, for a single-core speed of 2000MB/s, while HighwayHash on longer 16-byte messages slows down to only 200MB/s (no figure provided for 8-byte messages).
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#8How 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/
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#9This seems incredibly fast. Taking the benchmarks on the sites at face value, this seems like it's roughly twice as fast as xxHash. I also appreciate this line in the README: "HighwayHash is not a general purpose cryptographic hash function (such as Blake2b, SHA-3 or SHA-2) and should not be used if strong collision resistance is required" I am curious to know what the threshold for "strong collision resistance" is.
Not a cryptographer, but basically it must not be computability feasible (ie not just hard) to find a collision.
Re: Show HN: Go version of HighwayHash with optimized assembly implementations
#10This seems incredibly fast. Taking the benchmarks on the sites at face value, this seems like it's roughly twice as fast as xxHash. I also appreciate this line in the README: "HighwayHash is not a general purpose cryptographic hash function (such as Blake2b, SHA-3 or SHA-2) and should not be used if strong collision resistance is required" I am curious to know what the threshold for "strong collision resistance" is.
Check out the graph at https://github.com/fwessels/HashCompare that compares different hashing techniques.
And also we've done some predictions for collisions, see: https://github.com/fwessels/HashCompare/issues/1#issuecommen...