-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
Hash up to 8 bytes at once with FxHasher #1
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ | ||
/target | ||
**/*.rs.bk | ||
/Cargo.lock |
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't all of this mean that splitting a
write
call changes the hash? IIRC it shouldn't.Could an
union { bytes: [u8; size_of::<usize>()], usize: usize }
buffer be used instead?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That doesn't seem to be a documented nor a useful property.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @michaelwoerister @gankro I remember discussions about this property
Note that it's potentially useful to buffer the values if, with e.g. nested enums, you're writing byte-sized values (i.e. discriminants) most of the time, one at a time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since the
FxHasher
is only used with hash tables, I don't think that the hash must be stable. As long as it is deterministic for our use cases, it's fine, I think. It already treats(u8, u8)
different fromu16
where a similar argument could be made.My view is:
FxHasher
should be the absolute fastest for small keys and it should do whatever it can get away with in practice.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still think we should try and bench this against some buffering scheme, especially if it can all be inlined down to a few applications of the
usize
"block" function.EDIT: nevermind, all the leaves I was thinking off go through the
write_uN
methods below, so those would also need to be buffered somehow to observe a benefit.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, we don't need to do this in this PR. The benchmarks showed that it's an improvement.
As a sidenote, using perf.rlo is a lot more complicated when testing out-of-tree crates...