Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Hash map implementation for wmem
From: Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:14:18 -0400
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com> wrote:
>In my benchmarks it is measurably slower than GHashTable, but not excessively >so. Given the additional security it provides this seems like a reasonable >trade-off (and it is still faster than a wmem_tree). Any idea what makes I slower? The hash algorithm? http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/hash.html
Effectively. It has to do a fair bit more work per hash in order to properly mix in the randomness and prevent algorithmic complexity attacks. The implementation is simpler, so there are probably other areas where glib is slightly more optimized, but I expect the stronger hash is most of it. Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Hash map implementation for wmem Anders Broman (Apr 23)
- Re: Hash map implementation for wmem Evan Huus (Apr 23)
- Re: Hash map implementation for wmem Graham Bloice (Apr 23)
- Re: Hash map implementation for wmem Evan Huus (Apr 23)