Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: "'Greg Stark'" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "'Manfred Koizar'" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
Date: 2005-06-01 14:07:36
Message-ID: 13524.1117634856@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> I'm still a little nervous about dropping down to CRC32 from CRC64 and so
> was just wondering what the net saving would be using one CRC64 across the
> whole WAL record?

None to speak of; the startup/teardown time is trivial. It's the
per-byte cost that hurts.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jochem van Dieten 2005-06-01 14:07:37 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-06-01 14:05:13 Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations