I've been contact by Ayende Rahien with regard to some optimisations
he's been making. Some of these may be due to profiler artefacts, but
he's concerned about the hash code of ByteString.

The full blog post is here:

http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/12/30/when-mini-benchmarks-are-important.aspx

Various commenters have commented that the hash code for ByteString is
pretty bad. It's relatively easy to fix (without going to the extremes
mentioned in the blog post - I don't want to use unsafe code) but that
*would* mean losing compatibility with the hash code given by Java. I
don't personally have a problem with that - hash codes should almost
never treated as persistable - but I wanted to check with others
before making a change.

Any thoughts?

Jon

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.


Reply via email to