WhatHash Explained: Uses, Types, and Examples

WhatHash vs. Other Hashing Methods: Which Is Best?Hashing is a foundational technique in computer science used for indexing, data integrity, cryptography, and more. The goal of this article is to compare WhatHash with several other common hashing methods, explain their strengths and weaknesses, and give guidance on which to choose based on real-world needs.

What is WhatHash?

WhatHash is a hypothetical (or proprietary) hashing algorithm designed to balance performance and security for general-purpose applications. It aims to offer fast computation like non-cryptographic hashes while incorporating security-minded features—such as resistance to simple collision attacks—that make it suitable for a wider range of tasks than standard hash functions like CRC or simple multiplicative hashes.

Key characteristics typically promoted for WhatHash:

• Fast hashing speed comparable to high-performance non-cryptographic hashes.
• Collision resistance improved over trivial hashes (but not necessarily at the level of modern crypto hashes).
• Designed for both in-memory data structures (hash tables) and integrity checks in low-threat environments.

Common hashing methods to compare

Below are other hashing families commonly used across applications:

• MD5 and SHA-1: older cryptographic hashes, now considered broken for many security uses due to collision vulnerabilities.
• SHA-2 family (SHA-256, SHA-512): current widely used cryptographic hashes with strong security properties.
• SHA-3 family (Keccak): alternative cryptographic hash with different internal structure and robustness guarantees.
• BLAKE2 / BLAKE3: modern cryptographic hashes designed for high performance and strong security.
• MurmurHash, CityHash, FarmHash, XXHash: high-performance non-cryptographic hashes commonly used for hash tables, checksums, and deduplication.
• CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check): a very fast checksum used mainly for detecting accidental changes, not secure against malicious collisions.

Goals and metrics for comparison

When choosing a hashing method, consider the following dimensions:

• Speed (throughput and latency)
• Collision resistance (probability and attack difficulty)
• Preimage resistance (reversibility)
• Avalanche effect (small input changes significantly change output)
• Output size (digest length)
• Resource usage (memory, parallelism, hardware acceleration)
• Suitability for use case (hash tables, checksums, cryptography, password hashing)

Comparison: WhatHash vs. others

When to use WhatHash

Use WhatHash when:

• You need faster performance than cryptographic hashes but want better collision resistance than simple non-crypto hashes.
• The threat model assumes accidental collisions or basic adversaries but not determined cryptanalytic attacks.
• You’re building systems like high-performance logging, internal deduplication, or distributed systems where speed matters and strong cryptographic guarantees are unnecessary.

Example: Using WhatHash to compute keys for an in-memory cache where a malicious attacker is not expected to craft collisions.

When NOT to use WhatHash

Avoid WhatHash if:

• You require cryptographic guarantees (digital signatures, password storage, TLS, blockchain data integrity). Use SHA-2/SHA-3/BLAKE2 instead.
• The environment may be adversarial and attackers can craft inputs to force collisions or preimage discoveries.
• You need a proven and widely-audited algorithm for compliance or long-term archival integrity.

Practical guidance and recommendations

• For hash tables and performance-sensitive internal systems: prefer non-cryptographic fast hashes (XXHash, CityHash, MurmurHash). If you want slightly stronger collision resistance, WhatHash may be a good compromise.
• For file integrity or checksums where accidental corruption is the only concern: CRCs or fast non-cryptographic hashes are fine.
• For security-critical applications (authentication, signatures, secure deduplication): choose SHA-2/SHA-3 or BLAKE2/BLAKE3.
• If adopting WhatHash, validate it against realistic workloads. Measure throughput, distribution uniformity, and collision frequency with representative datasets.

Example benchmark scenario

A simple benchmark to compare WhatHash with XXHash and SHA-256:

• Dataset: 100,000 files, sizes varying 1 KB–10 MB.
• Metrics: throughput (MB/s), CPU utilization, collision count (after truncation to 64 bits).
• Expected outcome: XXHash highest throughput; SHA-256 lowest; WhatHash between XXHash and SHA-256 but with fewer collisions than XXHash at 64-bit truncation.

Security considerations

• No proprietary or novel hash should be assumed secure without peer review and cryptanalysis.
• For long-term or adversarial contexts, rely on well-studied primitives (SHA-2, SHA-3, BLAKE2/3).
• Mixing hashing strategies can help: e.g., use a fast hash for coarse filtering and a cryptographic hash for final verification.

Conclusion

There is no universally “best” hash—the right choice depends on threats and performance needs. If you need speed above all and no adversary, go with fast non-cryptographic hashes. If you need strong security, choose SHA-2/SHA-3 or BLAKE2/3. WhatHash fits a middle ground: high performance with moderate collision resistance, suitable for many internal, non-adversarial applications but not a replacement for cryptographic hashes where security matters.