Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #385820

Re: Good hash for pointers

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 18:31:15 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 09/06/2024 12:35, Bonita Montero wrote:
> >  
> >> uint64_t MichaelsHash( uint64_t key )
> >> {
> >>  __m128i xkey = _mm_set_epi64x( key, 42 );
> >>  using bar_t = pair<uint64_t, uint64_t>;
> >>  static bar_t const bars[8] =
> >>  {
> >>   { 0xBB09BBCC90B24BF2, 0x825C622FF2792A01 },
> >>   { 0x94F0535CB06D4060, 0x939C756246DBFD1D },
> >>   { 0x5B835E01A7E14CA1, 0xAC2BDAFC023CDD06 },
> >>   { 0xE0B6A4735B774AEC, 0x9CAFB43E7DDE494C },
> >>  };
> >>  for( bar_t const &bar : bars )
> >>   xkey = _mm_aesenc_si128( xkey, _mm_set_epi64x( bar.second,
> >> bar.first ) );
> >>  return xkey.m128i_u64[0];
> >> }
> >>
> >> Now the code is about six times faster and I get a eight times
> >> speedup over single-threaded processing with the same code.  Of
> >> course the results are still the same.  
> >
> > I have your permission to drop that in?  
> 
> Note that this code was cribbed from Michael S.

I don't permit to use my name in variant, modified by Bonita.
I prefer if my name is not used even on my own variant.
This code was never intended for production use. It is intended for use
as reference, as something that is "certainly random enough and then
many billions times more than enough". It is much much slower than
necessary for non-crypto hash.
On the other hand, it is probably billions of billions times weaker
than what now considered "good enough" for crypto hash.

If you ask my personal opinion, I think that multiplication modulo
2**64 by prime (or even non-prime) close in absolute value to 2**63.5
is sufficient, as long as it used with appropriate method of conversion
of hash function to table index, which, for this hash function, happens
to be linear scaling by size of hash table.
Ironically, it was the method originally proposed by Bonita. The only
thing (s)he didn't understand was that factors that contain many
consecutive '0' or '1' bits, esp. so in more significant bits,
should be avoided.

> If you
> think it's important to ask permission, I think he is
> the one you should be asking.
> 
> By the way, I thought you were looking for code that works
> in standard C, and acceptable under C90 rules.  Have you
> changed your mind about that?  The code above is a far
> cry from C, let alone C90.

Exactly.
I think that all methods that are both good and fast rely on 64-bit
unsigned integer arithmetic. And it seems to me that C90 does not
provide it in portable manner.
So, under portable C90 constraints one has to choose between good and
fast.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-05 00:59 +0300
  Re: Good hash for pointers Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 11:10 +0200
    Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-05 12:34 +0300
      Re: Good hash for pointers Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 12:05 +0200
        Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-05 13:11 +0300
  Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-05 08:58 -0700
    AES problem (was: Good hash for pointers) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-05 19:51 +0300
      Re: AES problem (was: Good hash for pointers) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-05 21:24 -0700
    Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-05 19:59 +0300
      Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-05 21:40 -0700
        Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-06 11:00 +0300
          Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-17 00:56 -0700
            Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-17 12:39 +0300
              Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-18 10:47 -0700
                Re: Good hash for pointers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 15:17 -0700
                Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-18 16:17 -0700
                Re: Good hash for pointers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-18 19:23 -0400
                Re: Good hash for pointers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 17:17 -0700
    Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-06 13:35 +0300
      Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-16 04:38 -0700
        Re: Good hash for pointers "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 12:34 -0700
  Re: Good hash for pointers Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:53 +0200
    Re: Good hash for pointers Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:35 +0200
      Re: Good hash for pointers Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-09 12:40 +0100
        Re: Good hash for pointers Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 15:09 +0200
      Re: Good hash for pointers Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 01:34 +0100
        Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-09 18:31 -0700
          Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-10 15:14 +0300
            Re: Good hash for pointers Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 14:40 +0200
            Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-15 20:32 -0700
        Re: Good hash for pointers Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:35 +0200

csiph-web