On Sunday 30 May 2010 18:29:31 Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I read through that thread and couldn't find much discussion of
> > alternative CRC implementations --- we spent all our time on arguing
> > about whether we needed 64-bit CRC or not.
> Alright, how about this thread?
> This actually sounds like precisely the same algorithm. Perhaps this
> implementation is much better but your tests on the old one showed a
> big difference between smaller and larger data sequences.
I haven't yet had a chance to read the intel paper (I am in the train and
latency is 30s+ and the original link is dead), but I got the sf.net
Seeing it I think I might know the reason why it wasn't as much faster as
promised - it introduces ordering constraints by avoiding shifts by using
term2. Not sure though.
Anybody got the implementation by Gurjeet? I couldn't find it online (within
the constraints of the connection).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2010-05-30 20:48:37|
|Subject: Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH]: CRC32 is limiting at COPY/CTAS/INSERT ... SELECT + speeding it up|
|Previous:||From: Jan Urbański||Date: 2010-05-30 18:02:05|
|Subject: Re: tsvector pg_stats seems quite a bit off.|