From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations |
Date: | 2005-03-07 14:39:50 |
Message-ID: | 23031.1110206390@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> Wow, a 64-bit CRC does seem excessive, especially when going back to Zmodem
> days where a 50-100k file seemed to be easily protected by a 32-bit CRC. I'm
> sure there are some error rates somewhere dependent upon the polynomial and
> the types of error detected.... Try the following link towards the bottom:
> http://www.ee.unb.ca/tervo/ee4253/crc.htm for some theory on detection rates
> vs. CRC size.
When the CRC size was decided, I recall someone arguing that it would
really make a difference to have 1-in-2^64 chance of failure rather than
1-in-2^32. I was dubious about this at the time, but didn't have any
evidence showing that we shouldn't go for 64. I suppose we ought to try
the same example with a 32-bit CRC and see how much it helps.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-03-07 15:40:08 | anoncvs unreachable? |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-03-07 13:06:32 | get generated keys and insert returning |