And the reason I said you certainly don't need a keyed hash ? Behaviour of the hash function will change with key and in some cases performance would degenerate to that of a linked list. (Ouch). And since the obvious thing to do is use a random key, OpenSSL's performance would get *very* erratic.
Simpler functions than cryptographic hashes will almost certainly yield better results here. I note someone further up the thread someone else has pointed that out. Peter From: "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> To: "openssl-dev@openssl.org" <openssl-dev@openssl.org> Date: 11/01/2017 13:14 Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] use SIPhash for OPENSSL_LH_strhash? Sent by: "openssl-dev" <openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org> The needs for OpenSSL's LHASH are exactly what SipHash was designed for: fast on short strings. OpenSSL's hash currently *does not* call MD5 or SHA1; the MD5 code is commented out. Yes, performance tests would greatly inform the decision. -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
