![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Monday January 6, aaronl@vitelus.com wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 04:03:28PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > I did a little testing and found that on a list of 2 million > > basenames from a recent backup index (800,000 unique): > > > > hash_mem (as included here) is noticably faster than HASH_HALF_MD4 or > > HASH_TEA: > > > > hash_mem: 10 seconds > > DX_HASH_HALF_MD4: 14 seconds > > DX_HASH_TEA: 15.2 seconds > > I'm curious how the hash at > http://www.burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/doobs.html would fare. He has a > 64-bit version at > http://www.burtleburtle.net/bob/c/lookup8.c. Performing the same tests: producing 8 bit hashes from 800,000 filenames. Speed is 10 seconds, comarable to hash_mem normalised standard deviation of frequencies is 0.0171039 which is is the same ball park as the hashes ext3 uses (they gave 0.0169 and 0.0182. hash_mem gave 0.02255). So (on this set of values at least) it does seem to be a better hash function. I might look more closely at it. Thanks, NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||