PureBasic Forums - English

wilbert wrote:more detail

For each chunk we do now:
HT(x)\WeakHash = RKHash(*Mem+HT(x)\Offset, ChunkSize) ; direct call RKHash()

vs (with a little code additions of course)
HT(x)\WeakHash = HT(x-1)\WeakHash * 257 + *B\b - (*A\b * Power) ; "fast hash calc" way
( like we do in WalkHashTable() )

Can we theoretically do that or 'chunk stepping' may give us a wrong hashes values and direct RKHash() call for every chunk is the only way?

Everything wrote:Can we theoretically do that or 'chunk stepping' may give us a wrong hashes values and direct RKHash() call for every chunk is the only way?

You can use a rolling hash to fill the hash table but it would be a lot slower.
In that case you calculate the rolling hash after each byte and store the hash in a table after each ChunkSize bytes.
The problem is that in that case you need to add to the hash and remove from the hash while the RKHash procedure starts fresh and only needs to add.
Another advantage of using the RKHash procedure is that the calculation of each hash does not rely on that of the previous chunk. Since modern cpu have multiple cores, you could split the job into for example four threads and let each thread calculate 25% of all the hashes that need to be calculated.

Is it a normal behavior when hash of block with zeroes is 0 and say hash of 16 byte block: is 1 is 2 etc ?

Everything wrote:Is it a normal behavior when hash of block with zeroes is 0 and say hash of 16 byte block:

Yes, that is normal behavior for this algorithm.