c565340adc
In 2013, I wrote "Cryptohash benchmarks 90 to 101% faster than external hashers". Re-benchmarking today, I found cryptonite's sha256 consistently outperformed coreutils by 10% for large files. Tested 10 mb, 100 mb, 1 gb files with both sha256 and sha512. And for smaller files, the external process startup time swamps the hash time. Perhaps cryptonite has improved. Or it could just do better on my current CPU Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU 4410Y @ 1.50GHz). Anyway, even if cryptonite is slower in some situations, seems likely it would only be marginally slower; it's got the same class of highly optimised C code under the hood as coreutils. The main difference between the two sha256 implementations seems to be how much of the inner loop they unroll.. This commit was sponsored by Henrik Riomar on Patreon. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| BuildVersion.hs | ||
| BundledPrograms.hs | ||
| collect-ghc-options.sh | ||
| Configure.hs | ||
| DesktopFile.hs | ||
| DistributionUpdate.hs | ||
| EvilSplicer.hs | ||
| InstallDesktopFile.hs | ||
| LinuxMkLibs.hs | ||
| MakeMans.hs | ||
| Mans.hs | ||
| mdwn2man | ||
| NullSoftInstaller.hs | ||
| OSXMkLibs.hs | ||
| Standalone.hs | ||
| TestConfig.hs | ||
| Version.hs | ||