Issue #5106 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).

Status changed from Assigned to Feedback

Hello,

> Simpler hash functions may be appropriate for hash tables, esp. small
> tables.

Please make it quantitative when talking about performance.

Please show a benchmark first.
How slow is MurmurHash?  How fast will st.c be if the algoritm
is replaced with another one?
And how much the drawback?  That is, how many collision will
increase in actual cases?


> Anybody positively adverse to changing it?  If so I won't bother.  Otherwise
> I might take a crack at it.

Please make your move first.

We cannot answer your question until you show a benchmark.
Even after that, we cannot promise to import your patch before
you create it.  The chicken or the egg :-)

Thanks,

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>
----------------------------------------
Feature #5106: Is MurmurHash overkill?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5106#change-25195

Author: kstephens (Kurt  Stephens)
Status: Feedback
Priority: Low
Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
Category: 
Target version: 


st.c implements MurmurHash to compute hash table indexes (#hash).  

Simpler hash functions may be appropriate for hash tables, esp. small tables.

Is there a particular reason this hash function was chosen?  Is MurmurHash typically used for check-summing purposes?

Anybody positively adverse to changing it?  If so I won't bother.  Otherwise I might take a crack at it.

-- KAS



-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/