On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Martin Nowak <d...@dawgfoto.de> wrote:
> It's probably far too early to think about this with all the other >> important issues you're addressing but have you given much thought to >> improving the hashing function? I haven't hit any issues with the speed >> of >> the current hasher but better performance is always welcome. MurmurHash >> seems to be all the rage these days with a lot of languages and systems >> adopting it >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**MurmurHash<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MurmurHash>> >> (it compiles down to >> ~52 instructions on x86). It'd be interesting to see benchmarks with it. >> I'm not sure where the current hashing function lives to see what it's >> like. >> >> Regards, >> Brad Anderson >> > > More throughput but higher latency. > http://codepad.org/kCVQ8eoq > Murmurhash was a little slower than CityHash but > both are a little expensive for very few bytes. > Interesting. Thanks for the link. Regards, Brad Anderson