how about higher quality hash algorithm?
- Lenguaje dominante
- Go
- Estrellas
- 8.2k
- Forks
- 614
- Merge medio
- 5 d 12 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 1
Descripción
Although hash algorithm is not the Bottleneck of bigcache, the [smhasher](https://github.com/rurban/smhasher)(the project of hash function quality and speed tests) show that FVNa has poor quality while other hash func has higher.
Should we evaluate the default hash func of bigcache again? After [the question and answer of hash](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3665247/fastest-hash-for-non-cryptographic-uses), lots of new hash functions come out, such as xxhash, wyhash, menhash, which have higher quality.
Due to some hash functions use hardware instructions provided by the CPU to accelerate (AVX2, SSE), we can use different hash func in different Platform, such as:
1. FVNa default
2. xxhash in amd
By the way, why bigcache has no dependence? Should only no dependence PR can be approve?
Look forward to your reply!
Guía de contribución
No hay ninguna guía de contribución indexada para este repositorio
Evaluación
Este issue todavía no se ha evaluado.