Re: Re: CRC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: CRC
Date: 2000-12-08 21:21:21
Message-ID: 3409.976310481@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> Thinking about it, I suspect that any CRC implementation that can't outrun
> MD5 by a wide margin is seriously sub-optimal.

I was finding that hard to believe, too, at least for CRC-32 (CRC-64
would take more code, so I'm not so sure about it).

Is that 64-bit code you pointed us to before actually a CRC, or
something else? It doesn't call itself a CRC, and I was having a hard
time extracting anything definite (like the polynomial) from all the
bit-pushing underbrush :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

  • Re: Re: CRC at 2000-12-08 21:32:56 from Bruce Guenter

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Guenter 2000-12-08 21:28:25 Re: CRC was: Re: beta testing version
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-12-08 21:07:21 Hash index on macaddr -> crash