From: | "Amonson, Paul D" <paul(dot)d(dot)amonson(at)intel(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Shankaran, Akash" <akash(dot)shankaran(at)intel(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: Proposal for Updating CRC32C with AVX-512 Algorithm. |
Date: | 2024-06-17 22:42:54 |
Message-ID: | BL1PR11MB5304F180D87B1222C7601C96DCCD2@BL1PR11MB5304.namprd11.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This is extremely workload dependent, it's not hard to find workloads with
> lots of very small record and very few big ones... What you observed might
> have "just" been the warmup behaviour where more full page writes have to
> be written.
Can you tell me how to avoid capturing this "warm-up" so that the numbers are more accurate?
> There a very frequent call computing COMP_CRC32C over just 20 bytes, while
> holding a crucial lock. If we were to do introduce something like this
> AVX-512 algorithm, it'd probably be worth to dispatch differently in case of
> compile-time known small lengths.
So are you suggesting that we be able to directly call into the 64/32 bit based algorithm directly from these known small byte cases in the code? I think that we can do that with a separate API being exposed.
> How does the latency of the AVX-512 algorithm compare to just using the
> CRC32C instruction?
I think I need more information on this one as I am not sure I understand the use case? The same function pointer indirect methods are used with or without the AVX-512 algorithm?
Paul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-06-17 22:43:26 | Re: cost delay brainstorming |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-06-17 22:40:59 | Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility |