On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> I suppose that the bulk of the CPU cycles being attributed to XLogInsert
> are going into the inlined CRC calculations. Maybe we need to think
> twice about the cost/benefit ratio of using 64-bit CRCs to protect xlog
> records that are often only a few dozen bytes.
Isn't the CRC quite important on recovery to recognize where the last
valid log record is?
Is there any better implementations of CRC-64? Would using a different
Would it help to do the CRC calculation in a more wholesale fashion in
How about switching to CRC-32 or even CRC-16? I searched the archives for
the reason CRC-64 was chosen in the first place. It seems that the
difference in computation time was not considered to be significant, and
there was 8 bytes available in the record header anyway.
Just some thoughts...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-03-06 10:05:12|
|Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2005-03-06 07:13:00|
|Subject: Re: Missing coalesce|