On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Matt Wilmas <php_li...@realplain.com> wrote: > Last June, it was briefly mentioned about changing PHP's string hash > function [1] (DJB33 *seems* pretty horrible, after all, as far as > collisions...). So 8 months ago I tried almost, if not, a half-dozen of > them (including Murmur3) that were simple enough to quickly toss in. > > The result? In all cases, I believe, fewer instructions (in zend_hash_find, > and the hashing function), BUT also a slight-to-small increase in cache > misses in Wordpress and other scripts... > > And in a test filling an array with a million "string_$i" keys (high > collision pattern for DJB33?), the speed was halved by the *huge* cache miss > increase. :-/ > > I couldn't quite understand what was happening, where, if there were fewer > collisions... Misses all spread out in the hash-array? > > So there didn't seem to be anything useful to gain there. > > > Now, after seeing Bogdan's hash optimization idea last month [2], and > reading Nikita's blog post again, I had some ideas I'd like to try -- > assuming nobody else is planning major changes. :-) Besides Nikita, I'm > addressing Dmitry and Xinchen because your names are on some minor hash > items on the 7.1 ideas wiki [4]. > > I'm thinking of a Robin Hood implementation with Universal hashing [5] (of > int keys and the string hashes). I haven't touched any code yet, but think > I've worked out all the details in my head, and am ready to take a stab at > it. I think it's fairly simple to get the basics working; and when I see > how that goes, I can do the additional optimizations I have in mind that it > allows (including reduced memory, on 64-bit at least). > > Question: Can I use zval.u1.v.reserved ? I guess I'll find out otherwise. > :-O > > > The string hash function itself is really a separate thing [6], but fasthash > [7] (not to be confused with "superfast") looks like a good one that I > missed before... After thinking about things, I think we could even > keep/use a 64-bit hash on 32-bit arch. > > > Well, just wanted to mention it first if anyone has a comment. :-) Should > be interesting, but no idea how it'll perform (lookups should be very, very > fast (upsizing also); but cache factors and inserts/deletes are wildcards). > Wish me luck!? > > > Thanks, > Matt > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=143444845304138&w=2 > [2] https://marc.info/?t=145744248100001&r=1&w=2 > [4] https://wiki.php.net/php-7.1-ideas > [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_hashing > [6] https://github.com/rurban/smhasher > [7] https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/doc/fasthash64
Hi Matt, I've benchmarked DJB and other hash before. I don't think any crypto safe hash cannot compete against DJB hash. I fully agree that collisions with DJB hash is too easy. However, collisions will not happen a lot under normal usage. DJB hash is super fast and any hash function will be compromised as time goes by. Therefore, Nikita's proposal that detects and limits number of collisions would be the best choice. IMO. Nikita, any progress on limiting collisions for all arrays? This feature is must have item for 7.1 IMHO. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
