From: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Date: | 2013-03-23 13:36:03 |
Message-ID: | CA+CSw_veVyAzw_ezWM1ezN7ahEkcqPHZoX0pBa0RcdqiH-KNtA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Andres showed that switching out the existing CRC for zlib's would
>> result in 8-30% increase in INSERT-SELECT speed
>> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201005202227.49990.andres@anarazel.de)
>> with the speeded up CRC still showing up as 10% of the profile. So I
>> guess another 5% speedup by doing the CRC 8 bytes at a time instead of
>> the used 4. And another couple % by using Fletcher or SIMD.
>
> I am not sure the considerations for WAL are the same as for page checksums -
> the current WAL code only computes the CRCs in rather small chunks, so very
> pipelineable algorithms/implementations don't necessarly show the same benefit
> for WAL as they do for page checksums...
Sure, but I think that WAL checksums are not a big overhead in that case anyway.
I should point out that getting the SIMD algorithm to not be a loss
for small variable sized workloads will take considerable amount of
effort and code. Whereas it's quite easy for pipelined CRC32 and
Fletcher (or should I say Adler as we want to use mod 65521).
Regards,
Ants Aasma
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-23 13:55:39 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-23 13:20:28 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |