improve haxmap performance

[someview]

I test some different map use cases. in every case(read 100%、99%、90%、75%、 50%) test code
xsync.mapof > concurrent-map(shard rwlock) > haxmap
the ConcurrentMap shard map with rwlock:

//goos: windows
//goarch: amd64
//pkg: benchmap
//cpu: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900K
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=100%
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=100%-24         	19311262	        59.97 ns/op	  16674108 ops/s
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=99%
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=99%-24          	19390272	        57.46 ns/op	  17403041 ops/s
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=90%
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=90%-24          	20722754	        58.18 ns/op	  17188562 ops/s
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=75%
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=75%-24          	19096568	        61.73 ns/op	  16198394 ops/s
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=50%
//BenchmarkConcurrentMap_WarmUp/reads=50%-24          	15739459	        69.01 ns/op	  14491307 ops/s

the xsync map result:

// goos: windows
// goarch: amd64
// pkg: benchmap
// cpu: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900K
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=100%
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=100%-24         	24926673	        47.70 ns/op	  20964357 ops/s
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=99%
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=99%-24          	24938018	        47.36 ns/op	  21114211 ops/s
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=90%
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=90%-24          	24128313	        46.64 ns/op	  21440622 ops/s
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=75%
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=75%-24          	23475463	        54.89 ns/op	  18219448 ops/s
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=50%
// BenchmarkXSyncMap_WarmUp/reads=50%-24          	20382096	        58.53 ns/op	  17084646 ops/s
// PASS

the haxmap result:

//goos: windows
//goarch: amd64
//pkg: benchmap
//cpu: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900K
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=100%
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=100%-24         	17538038	        63.97 ns/op	  15631949 ops/s
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=99%
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=99%-24          	17473504	        63.95 ns/op	  15638035 ops/s
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=90%
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=90%-24          	16729821	        66.61 ns/op	  15012730 ops/s
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=75%
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=75%-24          	17592495	        69.28 ns/op	  14433428 ops/s
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=50%
//BenchmarkHaxLockFreeMap_WarmUp/reads=50%-24          	15320367	        78.30 ns/op	  12770672 ops/s
//PASS

It's amazing. Maybe there cound be more performance for the lockfree map.

[alphadose]

It's amazing. Maybe there cound be more performance for the lockfree map.

there is an open issue to use xxh3 hashing instead of xxhash which might improve performance #41

I will look into it and publish the benchmarks for xxh3 vs xxhash for HaxMap sometime next week probably