You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
wyrng has been shown to have some flaws within the randomness
(from official repo )
Both of them are not 64 bit collision resistant, but is about 62 bits (flyingmutant/Cyan4973/vigna)
When test on longer dataset (32TB, 23 days), wyrand will fail practrand (vigna)
Would there be interest in implementing an alternative hash?
If there is interest, I think I might take a try in implementing it.
I think possible candidates would be highwayhash or xxh3
The former has a bit stronger preliminary (but not full) cryptanalysis. But both pass smhasher without problems without known hash issues.
Both are known to be fast.
I do want to add that all algorithms, including wyhash, has strong and weak points regarding speed depending on input length, output length, specific implementation (if SIMD which ISA?).
So I think it would not be fair to judge speed without seeing the actual implementation here.
If there is interest I might proceed as follows.
I shall assume that there is a desire here to keep it simple and not add another dependency
abstract current implementation within the codebase and isolate it
implement an alternate hash and then provide a way to select it, or maintain a branch
provide benchmarks to compare the two.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I will accept a PR to change the RNG algorithm if the benchmarks show that it is faster. However I am against having more than one supported RNG algorithm, as that is out of scope for this crate and would be more in scope for something like rand.
wyrng
has been shown to have some flaws within the randomness(from official repo )
Would there be interest in implementing an alternative hash?
If there is interest, I think I might take a try in implementing it.
I think possible candidates would be highwayhash or xxh3
The former has a bit stronger preliminary (but not full) cryptanalysis. But both pass smhasher without problems without known hash issues.
Both are known to be fast.
I do want to add that all algorithms, including wyhash, has strong and weak points regarding speed depending on input length, output length, specific implementation (if SIMD which ISA?).
So I think it would not be fair to judge speed without seeing the actual implementation here.
If there is interest I might proceed as follows.
I shall assume that there is a desire here to keep it simple and not add another dependency
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: