标签为 "hash" 的存档

php-perl哈希实现算法–DJBX33A (Daniel J. Bernstein, Times 33 with Addition) APR哈希默认算法

APR_DECLARE_NONSTD(unsigned int) apr_hashfunc_default(const char *char_key,
                                                      apr_ssize_t *klen)
{
    unsigned int hash = 0;
    const unsigned char *key = (const unsigned char *)char_key;
    const unsigned char *p;
    apr_ssize_t i;

    /*
     * This is the popular `times 33' hash algorithm which is used by
     * perl and also appears in Berkeley DB. This is one of the best
     * known hash functions for strings because it is both computed
     * very fast and distributes very well.
     *
     * The originator may be Dan Bernstein but the code in Berkeley DB
     * cites Chris Torek as the source. The best citation I have found
     * is "Chris Torek, Hash function for text in C, Usenet message
     * <27038@mimsy.umd.edu> in comp.lang.c , October, 1990." in Rich
     * Salz's USENIX 1992 paper about INN which can be found at
     * .
     *
     * The magic of number 33, i.e. why it works better than many other
     * constants, prime or not, has never been adequately explained by
     * anyone. So I try an explanation: if one experimentally tests all
     * multipliers between 1 and 256 (as I did while writing a low-level
     * data structure library some time ago) one detects that even
     * numbers are not useable at all. The remaining 128 odd numbers
     * (except for the number 1) work more or less all equally well.
     * They all distribute in an acceptable way and this way fill a hash
     * table with an average percent of approx. 86%.
     *
     * If one compares the chi^2 values of the variants (see
     * Bob Jenkins ``Hashing Frequently Asked Questions'' at
     * http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/hashfaq.html for a description
     * of chi^2), the number 33 not even has the best value. But the
     * number 33 and a few other equally good numbers like 17, 31, 63,
     * 127 and 129 have nevertheless a great advantage to the remaining
     * numbers in the large set of possible multipliers: their multiply
     * operation can be replaced by a faster operation based on just one
     * shift plus either a single addition or subtraction operation. And
     * because a hash function has to both distribute good _and_ has to
     * be very fast to compute, those few numbers should be preferred.
     *
     *                  -- Ralf S. Engelschall 
     */

    if (*klen == APR_HASH_KEY_STRING) {
        for (p = key; *p; p++) {
            hash = hash * 33 + *p;
        }
        *klen = p - key;
    }
    else {
        for (p = key, i = *klen; i; i--, p++) {
            hash = hash * 33 + *p;
        }
    }
    return hash;
}

Read more…