On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Andone, Bogdan <bogdan.and...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys, > > I would like to propose a small change into the DJBX33A hash function > algorithm which will make easier the key matching validations in hash > lookup functions. > > The change addresses the modulo 8 tailing bytes of the key. For these > bytes we can use an 8 bit shift instead of a 5 bit shift; we also need to > replace the ADD by XOR, in order to avoid byte level overflows. This change > ensures the uniqueness of the hash function transformation for the tailing > bytes: supposing two strings have same partial hash value for the first Nx8 > bytes, different combinations of tailing characters (with the same tail > size) will always generate different keys. > We have the following consequences: > If two strings have: > - same hash value, > - same length, > - same bytes for the first Nx8 positions, > then they are equal, and the tailing bytes can be skipped during > comparison. > > There is a visible performance gain if we apply this approach as we can > use a lightweight memcmp() implementation based on longs comparison and > completely free of the complexity incurred by tailing bytes. For Mediawiki > I have a 1.7% performance gain while Wordpress reports 1.2% speedup on > Haswell-EP. > > Let’s take a small example: > Suppose we have a key=”this_is_a_key_value”. > The hash function for the first N x 8 byes are computed in the original > way; suppose “this_is_a_key_va” (16bytes) will return a partial hash value > h1; the final hash value will be computed by the following sequence: > h = ((h1<<8) ^ h1) ^ ‘l’; > h = ((h<<8) ^ h) ^ ‘u’; > h = ((h<<8) ^ h) ^ ‘e’; > or, in only one operation: > h = (h1<<24) ^ (h1<<16) ^ (h1<<8) ^ h1 ^ (‘l’<<16) ^ ((‘l’^‘u’)<<8) ^ > (‘l’^’u’^‘e’) > We can see that ht=(‘l’<<16) ^ ((‘l’^‘u’)<<8) ^ (‘l’^’u’^‘e’) cannot be > obtained by any other 3 characters long tail. The statement is not true if > we use ADD instead of XOR, as extended ASCII characters might generate > overflows affecting the LSB of the higher byte in the hash value. > > I pushed a pull request here: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1793. > Unfortunately it does not pass the travis tests because “htmlspecialchars > etc use a generated table that assumes the current hash function” as > noticed by Nikita. > > Let me know your thoughts on this idea. > Hey Bogdan, This looks like an interesting idea! I'm somewhat apprehensive about coupling this to a change of the hash function, for two reasons: a) This will make it more problematic if we want to change the hash function in the future, e.g. if we want to switch to SipHash. b) The quality of the new hash distribution is not immediately clear, but likely non-trivially weaker. So I'm wondering if we can keep the concept of using a zend_ulong aligned memcmp while leaving the hash function alone: The zend_string allocation policy already allocates the string data aligned and padded to zend_ulong boundaries. If we were to additionally explicitly zero out the last byte (to avoid valgrind warnings) we should be able to compare the character data of two zend_strings using a zend_ulong memcmp. This would have the additional benefit that it works for normal string comparisons (unrelated to hashtables) as well. On the other hand, this is only possible for zend_string to zend_string comparisons, not for comparisons with static strings. Regards, Nikita
