From: | "agharta82(at)gmail(dot)com" <agharta82(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is OpenSSL AES-NI not available in pgcrypto? |
Date: | 2023-01-03 16:07:40 |
Message-ID: | bcc2cd2d-3c12-0650-156b-9cc37bbcddaf@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I see, I was hoping that wasn't the case.
Thanks a lot for your support.
My best regards,
Agharta
Il 03/01/23 16:54, Peter Eisentraut ha scritto:
> On 02.01.23 17:57, agharta82(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>> select pgp_sym_encrypt(data::text, 'pwd') --default to aes128
>> from generate_series('2022-01-01'::timestamp,
>> '2022-12-31'::timestamp, '1 hour'::interval) data
>>
>> vs
>>
>> select pgp_sym_encrypt(data::text, 'pwd','cipher-algo=bf') -- blowfish
>> from generate_series('2022-01-01'::timestamp,
>> '2022-12-31'::timestamp, '1 hour'::interval) data
>>
>> In my test both queries execution is similar....aes-128 was expected
>> about 5 time faster.
>>
>> So, why?
>>
>> Pgcrypto use OpenSSL as backend, so, does it explicit force software
>> aes calculation instead of AES-NI cpu ones?
>
> I suspect it is actually using AES hardware support, but all the other
> overhead of pgcrypto makes the difference not noticeable.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2023-01-03 16:12:13 | Re: 128-bit integers can range only up to (2 ^ 63 -1) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-03 16:02:36 | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local |