You benchmarked a really old heuristic hash in Murmur and xxh64. xxh3 is ~1.6x to 1.8x faster than xxh64 - extrapolating that to 5.7 in your paper puts it at ~18-27% faster. WyHash and UMash sometimes report faster numbers.
Even xxh3 isn't the cutting edge - gxhash (~1.8x faster) and aesni (~1.5x faster) use AES instructions. Compared to your approach that perf disparity should grow to ~30-40%.
Hopefully that answers your question about why someone might still choose to use heuristic hashing rather than k-wise independent hashing when collision resistance isn't critical.
Comments
You benchmarked a really old heuristic hash in Murmur and xxh64. xxh3 is ~1.6x to 1.8x faster than xxh64 - extrapolating that to 5.7 in your paper puts it at ~18-27% faster. WyHash and UMash sometimes report faster numbers.
Even xxh3 isn't the cutting edge - gxhash (~1.8x faster) and aesni (~1.5x faster) use AES instructions. Compared to your approach that perf disparity should grow to ~30-40%.
Hopefully that answers your question about why someone might still choose to use heuristic hashing rather than k-wise independent hashing when collision resistance isn't critical.
Not really. Our method is also 2x faster than xxh3.
Sure, AES make the heuristic hashes harder to break, but they still provide (1) slower performance, (2) no guarantees.