On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Brad Anderson 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> (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.
Druntime actually did use MurmurHash for a while and then dropped it because the site had no copyright license for the code (a mistake that has since been rectified). I'd consider switching back, though I don't really like that MurmurHash has a number of separate implementations targeted at different platforms, each having different performance characteristics. It's 4x faster than SuperFastHash on x86 but 10x slower than SuperFastHash on SPARC, for example.
