secp256r1 has been hand optimized for performance, the others haven't. If performance there matters to you, it's actually faster to call out to C libraries to verify 384 and 512 bit curves.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:27 AM Shobhit Srivastava <simplysh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All > > I have tried to do the performance analysis for different curve in golang > and got below output: > for secp256r1 I got 28000 Signature verified per second > for secp384r1 I got 1600 Signature verified per second > for secp521r1 I got 700 Signature verified per second > > Is there something I did wrong or is this the usual results? > > Let me know if someone has done performance comparison. > > Best, > Shobhit > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/fdc14759-b995-43af-948d-cdb2201e4718n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/fdc14759-b995-43af-948d-cdb2201e4718n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CA%2Bv29Lu_jcEc9BN87mojgZVWxsvRM2VZydi05oKoxD39KfU-9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
