Faster 64-bit universal hashing using carry-less multiplications · HackerPapers discussions

Faster 64-bit universal hashing using carry-less multiplications — mentioned by nkurz

Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:54:23 GMT

At a glance, this seems like a clear explanation of using standard SIMD instructions to solve the problem, but I think the landscape has changed since this was written such that there are now better approaches. In 2010, Intel released processors with the a dedicated instruction for "packed carry-less multiplication": https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-carry-less-m.... Unfortunately, the early implementations (through Sandy Bridge) were slow, and could be beaten by combining other SIMD operations as shown in this paper. With the Haswell generation released in 2013, though…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Faster 64-bit universal hashing using carry-less multiplications — mentioned by jbapple

Thu, 03 Mar 2016 13:57:39 GMT

Where can I read what they mean by "Strong" hashing for HighwayHash? Also, is there a peer-reviewed paper on SipTreeHash? I am not a cryptographer, so I wouldn't trust my own instincts in terms of evaluating its strength compared to SipHash. For non-cryptographic applications, CLHASH produces 64 bits of result and is 2.004/2^64 almost delta universal, at a cost of 0.16 cycles per byte on Haswell and 0.10 cycles per byte on Skylake. https://github.com/lemire/StronglyUniversalStringHashing http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.03465

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Faster 64-bit universal hashing using carry-less multiplications — HN submission

Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:14:11 GMT

Faster 64-bit universal hashing using carry-less multiplications

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Faster 64-bit universal hashing using carry-less multiplications — mentioned by twotwotwo

Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:34:23 GMT

The paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.03465v7.pdf) goes into that section 6.1, which Lemire mentions in a comment on the post--summarizing as best I can: CLHash, the hash the post is focused on, passes all except the avalanche test for strings <8 bytes, and could be made to pass it by adding a bit-mixing step to the end (that provably doesn't make random collisions more likely, since it's an invertible transform on the hash).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.