zstd VS xxHash

Of course, you may get different results with another dataset.

gzip (zlib -6) [ratio=32%] [compr=35Mo/s] [dec=407Mo/s]

zstd (zstd -2) [ratio=32%] [compr=356Mo/s] [dec=1067Mo/s]

NB1: The default for zstd is -3, but the table only had -2. The difference is probably small. The range is 1-22 for zstd and 1-9 for gzip.

NB2: The default program for gzip (at least with Debian) is the executable from zlib. With my workflows, libdeflate-gzip iscompatible and noticably faster.

NB3: This benchmark is 2 years old. The latest releases of zstd are much better, see https://github.com/facebook/zstd/releases

For a high compression, according to this benchmark xz can do slightly better, if you're willing to pay a 10× penalty on decompression.

xz -9 [ratio=23%] [compr=2.6Mo/s] [dec=88Mo/s]

zstd -9 [ratio=23%] [compr=2.6Mo/s] [dec=88Mo/s]

Compression, synchronization and backup systems often use rolling hash to implement "content-defined chunking", an effective form of deduplication.

In optimized implementations, Rabin-Karp is likely to be the bottleneck. See for instance https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/2483 which replaces a Rabin-Karp variant by a >2x faster Gear-Hashing.

Get the data https://publicdistst.blob.core.windows.net/data/root.tar.zst magnet:?xt=urn:btih:84931cd80409ba6331f2fcfbe64ba64d4381aec5&dn=root.tar.zst How to extract https://github.com/facebook/zstd Linux (debian): `sudo apt install zstd` ``` tar -I 'zstd -d -T0' -xvf root.tar.zst ```

I've done that experiment with zstd before.

https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/programs/zstd.1.md...

Not sure about brotli though.

If you want this functionality in zstd itself, check this out: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/2349

The story says : "ZSTD 1.5.5 is released with a corruption fix found at Google"

> 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.