| From: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, stark(at)mit(dot)edu |
| Subject: | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Date: | 2012-01-04 11:53:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAP-rdTYtSvCRQ=2FbjryT8G7eeDFw+PDp1Py7i07mSAmhkLtUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/1/4 Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if CRC32c wouldn't be a good alternative given more and more cpus
>> (its in SSE 4.2) support calculating it in silicon.
>
> We're trying to get something that fits in 16bits for this release.
> I'm guessing CRC32c doesn't?
What happens to the problem-detecting performance of a 16 bit part of
a CRC32c vs. a real 16 bit checksum? If it is still as good, it might
make sense to use the former, assuming that there is a way to easily
trigger the silicon support and enough CPUs support it.
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pratikchirania | 2012-01-04 12:17:17 | Re: pgstat wait timeout |
| Previous Message | Ants Aasma | 2012-01-04 11:29:34 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |