Re: [RFC] On watchman support

> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:12 AM, David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> wrote:
> >> Or will you go
> >> with cityhash now.. I ask because you have another sse optimization
> >> for hashmap on your watchman branch and that could reduce init time
> >> for name-hash. Name-hash is used often on case-insensitive fs (less
> >> often on case-sensitive fs).
> >
> > Cityhash would be better, because it has actual engineering effort put
> > into it; what I did on my branch is a hack that happens to work
> > decently.  As the comment notes, I did not spend much effort on tuning
> > my implementation.  Also, Cityhash doesn't require SSE, so it's more
> > portable.
> 
> Cityhash looks less appealing to me. For one thing it's C++ so linking
> to C can't be done. I could add a few "extern "C"" to make it work.
> But if we plan to support it eventually, cityhash must support C out
> of the box.
> 
> Then cityhash does not support case-insensitive hashing. I had to make
> a CityHash32i version based on CityHash32. It's probably my bugs
> there, but performance is worse (~120ms) than original hashmap.c
> (90ms). Enabling sse4.2 helps a bit, but still worse. Using the
> case-sensitive version in place for memihash and strihash does make
> cityhash win over hashmap.c, around 50ms (with or without sse4.2). But
> that's still not as good as your version (~35ms)..