Improve performance by using the xxHash64 algorithm from the hash-wasm package

[mrauhu]

Hello @pi0.

I suggest to use:

• the xxHash64 algorithm instead of MurmurHash3 or SHA-256 algorithms;
• WebAssembly version instead of JavaScript version.

Hash functions speed benchmark

Package and function	Size
	32 Bytes, MB/s	1 MB, MB/s
crypto-js 4.1.1 sha256	3.38	32.11
hash-wasm 4.9.0 sha256()	25.30	206.53
hash-wasm 4.9.0 createSHA256()	23.20	205.00
xxhash-wasm 0.4.2	21.80	9331.32
hash-wasm 4.9.0 xxhash64()	41.10	9639.89
hash-wasm 4.9.0 createXXHash64()	54.62	9946.82

CPU: Intel i7-8750H 2.2GHz (up to 3.9 GHz).

Information

• hash-wasm
  • hash-wasm benchmark
• SMhasher — Hash function quality and speed tests:
  • ❌ MurMurHash3 — poor
    https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/doc/Murmur3A.txt
  • ❌ SHA-256 — poor
    https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/doc/sha2-256.txt
  • ✔️ xxHash64 — good
    https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/doc/xxHash64.txt

Variants of breaking changes

Because createXXHash64() or xxHash64() functions is returns a promise.

A.

import { hash } from 'ohash';

const key = await hash(args);

B.

import { useHash } from 'ohash';

const hash = await useHash();
const key = hash(args);

Best wishes,
Sergey.

[pi0]

Hi @mrauhu thanks for the suggestion and detailed explanation.

For the time being, i prefer to keep using sha256 for two reasons:

• There is native API support both from node crypto and Web Crypto without the need to additional WASM to migrate
• Sha algorithms are much more widely adopted and tested

Speed concerns can be addressed in the following significant hash versions by moving to use native implementation and as you mentioned promise API in order to leverage Web Crypto. BTW not set to stone. We might change the algorithm again and I will keep xxhash/hash-wasm in mind.