Two cents, sorry if too obvious. If you want to try to squeeze more performance here, it seems valid to try to fallback to full comparison in case of collision. The algorithm will be correct irrespective of your (bad luck) with hash collisions, and at worst, with an insignificant probability, the time cost is O(n*n), but the typical cost will remain close to always O(n).
That way you try cheaper hashing algorithms without worry. Regards. On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 13:35, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > If there is a hash collision, it will cause a GPU hang. A cryptographic > hash function reduces that chance to practically zero. > > Marek > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 07:04 mikolajlubiak1337 <mikolajlubiak1...@proton.me> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> I have recently read Phoronix article[1] about you switching to BLAKE3 >> instead of SHA1. >> If BLAKE3 is a cryptographic hash function wouldn't it be faster to use a >> non cryptographic hash function or even a checksum function? Do you need >> the benefits of cryptographic hash functions over other hash/checksum >> functions for the purpose of uniquely identifing Vulkan shaders? >> >> [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mesa-BLAKE3-Shader-Hashing >> >> -- me >> >>
