On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 11:18:14AM -0500, Scott A Crosby wrote: > On > > http://www.cs.rice.edu/~scrosby/hash/CrosbyWallach_UsenixSec2003/LengthEffects.png > > UHASH exceeds the performance of perl's hash function, which is > simpler than your own. I notice that you say "with strings longer than around 44-bytes, UHASH dominates all the other hash functions, due in no small part to its extensive performance tuning and *hand-coded assembly routines.*" [emphasis mine] It's all well and good for people who can run your hand-coded VAX assembly, but when Intel's 80960* comes out and people start running Unix on it, won't they be forced to code your hash function all over again? Since everybody has hopes for Python beyond the VAX (heck, in 20 years VAX might have as little as 5% of the market -- anything could happen) there has been a consious decision not to hand-code anything in assembly in Python. Jeff * The Intel 80960, in case you haven't heard of it, is a superscalar processor that will require highly-tuned compilers and will run like a bat out of hell when the code is tuned right. I think it's capable of one floating-point and two integer instructions per cycle!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4