FastHash VS smhasher

I've implemented your RecSplit method in my MPHF benchmark library (written in C#). The suite is not yet public, but I do want to say thank you for your fantastic method/code/paper. In my own rabbithole research, I stumbled upon several artifacts of your rabbithole trail. Most notably the stuff on StackOverflow, which helped my own research.

I've releaed a set og fast hash functions[1] to help gain an understanding of speed vs. quality. My biggest takeaway is that most generic hash functions can be specialized for integer inputs[2], which often reduce latency by quite a lot, making MPFH more attractive over simple iteration on small sets, as the overhead of hashing is considerably smaller.

[1] https://github.com/Genbox/FastHash

[2] https://github.com/Genbox/FastHash/blob/master/src/FastHash/...

It was made (by Sanmayce) to optimize for instruction-level pipelining, and use the fact that modern CPUs have multiple execution ports. But due to those changes, it is not compatible with FNV1a anymore.

The trick of reading in stripes is employed by many of the fastest hashes. It is kinda funny to see how one author prefers a switch case over for loops, where others prefer while loops. The differences can sometimes have a big impact on what optimizations the compiler decides to use.

[1] https://github.com/Genbox/FastHash/blob/master/src/FastHash....

At the moment I'm working on FastHash[1], a pet project of mine to port a few high-performance non-cryptographic hash functions to C#.

I'm also trying to build FastLinq, a value-by-reference Language Integrated Query (LINQ) optimized for high-performance scenarios. It is kind of a weird mix as LINQ in .NET is known for its high overhead.

Finally, I'm working on an Office setting synchronization application. I heard a podcast with Paul Thurrott complaining about the lack of sync solutions, so I thought I would do one for fun.

[1] https://github.com/Genbox/FastHash

The algorithm passes all SMHasher quality tests and uses rounds of AES block cipher internally, so it is quite robust! For comparison XxH3, t1ha0 and many others don't pass SMHasher (while being slower).

Confirmed, I tested it. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher

There's lots of great hash functions out there: some are super fast, like xxhash and highly optimized, others are also super fast umash and based on interesting math ideas from finite fields^1, while maintaining high quality (according to SMHasher). Others are also fast and interesting (tabulation hash, that may sometimes be seemingly universal), one of the main originators of those ideas are Mikkel Thorup^2. Anyway, a couple of years ago I also tried my hand at building hashes and created a few that passed SMHasher (tifuhash ~ a floating point hash, beamsplitter - a seemingly-universal tabulation style hash, and this one discohash - a "more traditional" ARX-based design (addition rotation xor)^3 ).

0: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/xxh3.h

1: https://pvk.ca/Blog/2022/12/29/fixing-hashing-modulo-alpha-e...

2: https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01523

3: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/898.pdf https://crypto.polito.it/content/download/480/2850/file/docu...

4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAKE_(hash_function)

Discohash (posted here) is the fastest one I made, it's simple and doesn't rely on any arch-specific optimizations or vector instructions (AVX etc ~ tho I suppose...they could be added? I'm definitely no expert in them, I barely get away with doing the C/C++ implementations!)

The main mixing round function is:

  mix(const int A) {

ubsan, asan, valgrind tests are missing. some do offer symbolic verification of the algo, but not the implementations.

See my https://github.com/rurban/smhasher#crypto paragraph, and

The spinach story reminds me a lot on the false recommendation of siphash for hash table DDOS prevention. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher#security

The authors came up in their widely cited paper with a proper solution to spread the random hash seed into the inner loop, vastly enhancing its security by avoiding trivial hash collision attacks. But a secure, slow hash function can never prevent from normal hash seed attacks, when the random seed is known somehow. esp. with dynamic languages it's trivial to get the seed externally.

Other trivial countermeasures must be used then, which also don't make hash tables 10x slower, keeping them practical.

This is the best, most comprehensive hash test suite I know of: https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/

you might want to particularly look into murmur, spooky, and metrohash. I'm not exactly sure of what the tradeoffs involved are, or what your need is, but that site should serve as a good starting point at least.

Here is a good comparison table, as you can see, BLAKE can perform in secure way much faster than crc32, so my original point, - to use non weak hashes unless you really have a reason/requirement not to do so

smhasher is a great place to testing results for a massive number of hash algorithms.