Am 2022-05-18 11:54, schrieb Henrik K:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:50:48PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:40:42PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:29:40AM +0200, Michael Storz wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it is really simple and I can understand it now :-), thanks. However, I
> > would still prefer to be able to use the optimized version of MIME::Base32
> > if this module is installed. For us the installation is no problem, it would
> > just be a statement in our puppet class for SpamAssassin to install it on
> > all servers with SpamAssassin.
> >
> > Ah, I just saw that we still need to use the SH.pm plugin, since HashBL.pm
> > doesn't support attachment hashes. That's where the performance of
> > encode_base32 makes the biggest difference. Good thing I rewrote the whole
> > SH.pm plugin to support caching.
>
> But all the calls of encode_base32 in SH.pm only encode results of sha256()
> call? The performance should make no different as it's tiny string.
>
> I'd rather spend my time actually implementing the attachment hashes. :-)
Actually now that I did a quick benchmark of million rounds, my lousy
code
is _faster_ than MIME::Base32. 10 seconds vs 17 seconds.
I think mine might use more memory as it's handling the bits as a
string..
but it's faster. :-D
And before you question anything. I of course did a script that
generates
random strings of different sizes and run million loops to compare mine
and
MIME::Base32 output. There were no differences. I didn't bother to do
separate benchmark at that time.
Even better. Make a comment in the code, that your version is faster
than the 'official' version.
Michael
