| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: data-checksums |
| Date: | 2018-01-09 19:20:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1y=ioKs+cy_WRCNvh-4a3fVvM0ZiVa6jjbySQbXLKL1iQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> > That said, imv anyway, the performance hit is small and having checksums
> > is well worth it.
>
> I also would like to believe that the hit is small, but when PG official
> document writes "noticeable performance penalty", it becomes difficult to
> convince management that the hit is small :-)
>
>
Why ask us questions if you won't believe our answers?
Noticeable means it probably isn't important for most real-world cases, but
if you work at it you can probably detect it.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Agnar Renolen | 2018-01-09 19:20:40 | Re: Getting started with first user. |
| Previous Message | Rakesh Kumar | 2018-01-09 19:04:04 | Re: data-checksums |