Right. There is a little bit of overhead for padding for both md5 and sha1 (they use the same padding method), as a string a multiple of 64-bytes is created. Then each resulting 64-byte block is processed; this is linear. The methods are very similar, an important difference being the number of 32-bit chaining variables; md5 has four and sha1 has five. (The final values are the hash.) That is a factor in making the sha1 basic operation take longer, and thus the whole process take longer. (We could look it up and count all the XOR, SHIFT, OR and AND operations, but you can imagine there would be more in scrambling five things instead of four--well, scrambled along with a portion of the block.)
I empathize your arrrgh. Dar On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Alex Tweedly <a...@tweedly.net> wrote: > >> Your code has a minor bug :-) >> >> You "get MD5Digest(S[1]) " >> instead of using S[i] >> > > > Arrrrrrrrgh!!! ;-) > > Interestingly, md5 appears to scale roughly linearly on the length of the > strings. 100x as long string means about 15x as long to md5, while 1000x as > long string means about 120x as long to md5. sha1 is longer but scales > similarly. > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
