From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: Re: TODO list |
Date: | 2001-04-05 17:05:37 |
Message-ID: | 21533.986490337@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> Has anybody done performance and reliability tests with CRC64 ?
> I think it must be a CPU eater. It looks a lot more complex than a CRC32.
On my box (PA-RISC) the inner loop is about 14 cycles/byte, vs. about
7 cycles/byte for CRC32. On almost any machine, either one will be
negligible in comparison to the cost of disk I/O.
> Since we need to guard a maximum of 32k bytes for pg pages I would -
> if at all - consider to use a 32bit adler instead of a CRC, since that
> is a lot cheaper to calculate.
You are several months too late to re-open that argument. It's done and
it's not changing for 7.1.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-05 17:31:13 | Re: ecpg long int problem on alpha + fix |
Previous Message | matthew green | 2001-04-05 16:26:09 | re: [lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu: Third call for platform testing] |