is there any reason to use SuperFastHash in druntime? (except speed)

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 09:36:22 +0000, Martin Nowak wrote:

> On Thursday, 28 May 2015 at 03:09:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> i think that there is some sense in trading some speed for better
>> distribution.
>> what do you think?
> We discussed most part of this already.
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/mff4id$hj8$1@digitalmars.com

i was more interested in reasons behind choosing SFH, yet worded my 
question poorly. sorry.

> Though I don't get any feedback for the library AA.
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/mjsma6$196h$1@digitalmars.com

me has nothing valuable to say. ;-) sadly, i can see things done wrong 
only after they were done, not in the design stage.

>> and i believe that people that care about performance will roll their
>> own hash functions anyway
> Anyone will use the built-in hash, performance is of utmost importance.

i believe that it should be "acceptable", not "fastest possible". i like 
to trade some speed for better output, for example. what is the reason of 
having superfast, but not good hash function? code will spend alot of 
time resolving collisions then. ;-)

>> [2] http://code.google.com/p/fast-hash/
> It's called fast hash, but how fast is it?

i didn't do any serious measurement, but for me it's slightly faster than 
Murmur3 (which is seen even in code, as it uses one multiplication where 
Murmur3 is using two), and the quality of output is comparable.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150529/94d0e0f7/attachment.sig>