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
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
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
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have recently read Phoronix article[1] about you switching to BLAKE3
> instead of SHA1.
> If
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
