We throw away the original for space though, so there is nothing to compare on collision (hence the cryptographic hash).
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 10:23 AM abel.berna...@gmail.com < abel.berna...@gmail.com> wrote: > Two cents, sorry if too obvious. > > If you want to try to squeeze more performance here, it seems valid to try > to fallback to full comparison in case of collision. The algorithm will be > correct irrespective of your (bad luck) with hash collisions, and at worst, > with an insignificant probability, the time cost is O(n*n), but the typical > cost will remain close to always O(n). > > That way you try cheaper hashing algorithms without worry. > > Regards. > > > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 13:35, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If there is a hash collision, it will cause a GPU hang. A cryptographic >> hash function reduces that chance to practically zero. >> >> Marek >> >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 07:04 mikolajlubiak1337 < >> mikolajlubiak1...@proton.me> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> I have recently read Phoronix article[1] about you switching to BLAKE3 >>> instead of SHA1. >>> If BLAKE3 is a cryptographic hash function wouldn't it be faster to use >>> a non cryptographic hash function or even a checksum function? Do you need >>> the benefits of cryptographic hash functions over other hash/checksum >>> functions for the purpose of uniquely identifing Vulkan shaders? >>> >>> [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mesa-BLAKE3-Shader-Hashing >>> >>> -- me >>> >>>