dotfiles VS xxHash

This is how I install it, then the service file is very similar too it just starts this other picom executable. https://github.com/AlexAegis/dotfiles/blob/master/modules/picom/1.user.sh

I install it from repo like this: https://github.com/AlexAegis/dotfiles/tree/master/modules/powerline

https://github.com/AlexAegis/dotfiles https://github.com/AlexAegis/pont

So I decided that I do something way simpler. I suggest you read my README, or just check out my dotfile repo: https://github.com/alexaegis/dotfiles

Another example on how the modules matter more than pont itself. On it's own it has 0 context on what XDG folder locations are, but I have an xdg module (https://github.com/AlexAegis/dotfiles/tree/master/modules/xdg) that has an environmental file in ~/.config/environment.d listing my XDG config (which is pretty much the default but that doesnt matter) And a named, environment script. These environment scripts are always run, no matter what. And I'm using them to source environmental variables, so if ANOTHER module is dependent on xdg because I'm using these variables, it doesnt matter if my environment has these variables or not, pont will load them, from there.

> GPU Hash Table?

How bad would performance have suffered if you sha256'd the lines to build the map? I'm going to guess "badly"?

Maybe something like this in CUDA: https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash ?

Examples of fast, simple hashes that are independent enough includes murmur, xxHash, Fowler–Noll–Vo hash function and many others

If you're only using the hash for non-cryptographic applications, there are much faster hashes: https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash

I found the benchmark result of AMD ryzen 5950X

But what's the catch, you're thinking ? Well, it is a bit slower than its counterparts when it comes to deserializing (and marginally faster for serializing). To achieve smaller footprint, it uses a few tricks and notably a custom hash table to deduplicate strings. This comes at a cost of course (even when featuring xxHash to speed things up), but keeps the slowdown reasonable (I think).

Non cryptographic hashes has collisions, for example, assume you having content like "abcdefg" which hashed value is "123", in case of weak hash algorithm some other content like "abcdefZ" can also have a hash "123" which basically means such hash function is failed to be unique fingerprint of particular content. BLAKE3 for example can do 6-7Gb/s which make it pretty fast and secure. If your requirement accepts collision with defined error rate, I would advise you to take a look at XXH3 if you need very snappy hash algorithm, which can run at pace or RAM access (30GB/s+), but again, run tests at particular equipment you targeting, may be AES hardware accelerated MeowHash will serve you better.