-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ninja command hashing could use the newer MurmurHash3 function #636
Comments
Do you have benchmarks showing how much faster it is? I believe it's at least significantly longer, which is a minus. The flaw was that it's possible to engineer collisions as far as I know, which isn't a problem for ninja's use case. |
I don't have any numbers other than the performance quoted in the link (which is actually from an old version of the algorithm). I can implement it, shouldn't be hard. |
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
I wouldn't be able to review it, sry. |
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
If the label was "we won't work on this", I would add it. But "help wanted" sounds like "if you write a PR we will be happy to review and merge it" to me. But I wouldn't have the time to review a PR for this, so I don't want to give people wrong impressions. |
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
Closing would be the wrong message IMHO. Tags like "low priority" or "backlog" might be fitting. |
Ninja computes the command line hash with MurmurHash2 (from the comments). There is a newer, faster MurmurHash algorithm, MurmurHash3
https://code.google.com/p/smhasher/wiki/MurmurHash3
Based on the quoted performance stats, MurmurHash3_x64_128 should take 66% of the time of MurmurHash2. Also MurmurHash2 had a flaw in the algorithm.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: