That is surprising. Do you know the reasons? Is it a special use case or was asm really faster? I find that hard to believe.

It's a custom solution, but nothing special just incremental hashing for large files.

I took off the shelf wasm crypto libraries to compare it, but the leading one was 10x slower.

can we see?

yeah check back at the end of the day.

will try to rip it out of the project and put it in a standalone benchmark.

It'd be interesting to compare it to a SHA-256 algorithm that uses Wasm simd: https://github.com/ChrisWhealy/wasm_sha256

	▲	theultdev 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Noted, will add that. Last time I tried https://github.com/Daninet/hash-wasm edit: I focus on browsers, that's wasm but not for browser envs. ---- https://theultdev.github.io/web-sha256-benchmark https://github.com/TheUltDev/web-sha256-benchmark seems it is chrome wasm that is slow. asmjs is about the same speed in chrome and firefox (with asm optimizations still enabled) but wasm is slow as hell in chrome, asm still better. side note: someone mentioned native crypto.subtle, but that doesn't have incremental hashing so can't use it for large files. however I do use it in practice for smaller files.