First, you generally do not want to use a cryptographic hash for a hash table. An algorithm that's very fast by cryptographic standards is still excruciatingly slow by hash table standards.

Second, you want to ensure that every bit of the input can/will affect the result. One easy way to do that is to rotate the current result by some number of bits, then XOR the current hash code with the current byte. Repeat until you reach the end of the string. Note that you generally do not want the rotation to be an even multiple of the byte size either.

For example, assuming the common case of 8 bit bytes, you might rotate by 5 bits:

int hash(char const *input) { 
    int result = 0x55555555;

    while (*input) { 
        result ^= *input++;
        result = rol(result, 5);
    }
}

Edit: Also note that 10000 slots is rarely a good choice for a hash table size. You usually want one of two things: you either want a prime number as the size (required to ensure correctness with some types of hash resolution) or else a power of 2 (so reducing the value to the correct range can be done with a simple bit-mask).

Wikipedia shows a nice string hash function called Jenkins One At A Time Hash. It also quotes improved versions of this hash.

uint32_t jenkins_one_at_a_time_hash(char *key, size_t len)
{
    uint32_t hash, i;
    for(hash = i = 0; i < len; ++i)
    {
        hash += key[i];
        hash += (hash << 10);
        hash ^= (hash >> 6);
    }
    hash += (hash << 3);
    hash ^= (hash >> 11);
    hash += (hash << 15);
    return hash;
}

There are a number of existing hashtable implementations for C, from the C standard library hcreate/hdestroy/hsearch, to those in the APR and glib, which also provide prebuilt hash functions. I'd highly recommend using those rather than inventing your own hashtable or hash function; they've been optimized heavily for common use-cases.

If your dataset is static, however, your best solution is probably to use a perfect hash. gperf will generate a perfect hash for you for a given dataset.

djb2 has 317 collisions for this 466k english dictionary while MurmurHash has none for 64 bit hashes, and 21 for 32 bit hashes (around 25 is to be expected for 466k random 32 bit hashes). My recommendation is using MurmurHash if available, it is very fast, because it takes in several bytes at a time. But if you need a simple and short hash function to copy and paste to your project I'd recommend using murmurs one-byte-at-a-time version:

uint32_t inline MurmurOAAT32 ( const char * key)
{
  uint32_t h(3323198485ul);
  for (;*key;++key) {
    h ^= *key;
    h *= 0x5bd1e995;
    h ^= h >> 15;
  }
  return h;
}

uint64_t inline MurmurOAAT64 ( const char * key)
{
  uint64_t h(525201411107845655ull);
  for (;*key;++key) {
    h ^= *key;
    h *= 0x5bd1e9955bd1e995;
    h ^= h >> 47;
  }
  return h;
}

The optimal size of a hash table is - in short - as large as possible while still fitting into memory. Because we don't usually know or want to look up how much memory we have available, and it might even change, the optimal hash table size is roughly 2x the expected number of elements to be stored in the table. Allocating much more than that will make your hash table faster but at rapidly diminishing returns, making your hash table smaller than that will make it exponentially slower. This is because there is a non-linear trade-off between space and time complexity for hash tables, with an optimal load factor of 2-sqrt(2) = 0.58... apparently.

djb2 is good

Though djb2, as presented on stackoverflow by cnicutar, is almost certainly better, I think it's worth showing the K&R hashes too: