hash function for mac needed

[Richard Harter]

In article <14396 at dog.ee.lbl.gov>, torek at elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:

> Indeed: as it turns out, while many people have spent much time looking
> for `good' hashing functions, fewer seem to have noted that many
> hashing systems spend more time computing hashes than searching.  I
> find that this is usually the case, and that a fast hash function is
> better than a slower-but-better-distribution function.  One good hash
> function, useful in many applications, is this:

> 	hash = 0;
> 	for (each character)
> 		hash = (hash * 33) + (the character);
> 	hash_index = hash & ((some power of two) - 1);

And it may well pay to be even more radical in trading speed for 'perfection'.
In one of my programs I found it quite profitable to only look at the last
ten characters of a string, summing all but the last two, and doing shift
and sum on the last two.  E.g. if n is the string length

	hash = 0;
	cc = string + n;
	switch (n>10 ? 10 : n) {
		case 10: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  9: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  8: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  7: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  6: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  5: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  4: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  3: hash += (int)*--cc;
		case  2: hash += ((int)*--cc)<<1;
		case  1: hash += ((int)*--cc)<<3;
		default: break;
		}
	hash &=  1023;

Admittedly this appears crude, but in practice the last ten bytes were
all that were really needed to distinguish most strings (in the application
of interest, of course.)  Nor was it really needful to do anything more
than summing bytes.  I should note that the string length was stored in
the table; in effect it served as a secondary key for the bucket search
loop.  The speed up was quite sharp.
-- 
Richard Harter, Software Maintenance and Development Systems, Inc.
Net address: jjmhome!smds!rh Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742
This sentence no verb.  This sentence short.  This signature done.