Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group