Three Unlikely Successful Features of D

[Brad Anderson]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Martin Nowak <dawg at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120321/93583964/attachment-0001.html>