Re: Re: CRC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: CRC
Date: 2000-12-08 21:30:58
Message-ID: 3457.976311058@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> writes:
>> Are you really saying MD5 was faster than CRC-32?

> Yes. I expect it's because the operations used in MD5 are easily
> parallelized, and operate on blocks of 64-bytes at a time, while the CRC
> is mostly non-parallelizable, uses a table lookup, and operates on
> single bytes.

What MD5 implementation did you use? The one I have handy (the original
RSA reference version) sure looks like it's more computation per byte
than a CRC.

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: Re: CRC at 2000-12-08 20:54:30 from Bruce Guenter

Responses

  • Re: Re: CRC at 2000-12-08 22:02:54 from Bruce Guenter

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Guenter 2000-12-08 21:32:56 Re: Re: CRC
Previous Message Bruce Guenter 2000-12-08 21:28:25 Re: CRC was: Re: beta testing version