Horton

Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations

Mark Cave-Ayland <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "'Manfred Koizar'" <mkoi-pg@aon.at>, "'Greg Stark'" <gsstark@mit.edu>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2005-05-27T15:01:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: 27 May 2005 15:00
> To: Mark Cave-Ayland (External)
> Cc: 'Manfred Koizar'; 'Greg Stark'; 'Bruce Momjian';
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations

(cut)

> Not sure I believe these numbers.  Shouldn't 2x32 be about twice as 
> slow as just one 32-bit CRC?

Also I've just quickly tested on the Xeon Linux FC1 box I used with my
original program using Manfred's program and the margin is even closer:

Opt	32     32a    32b    2x32   64     64a    64b
------------------------------------------------------
O1    2.75   2.81   2.71   3.16   3.53   3.64   7.25
O2    2.75   2.78   2.87   2.94   7.63   10.61  11.93
O3    2.84   2.85   3.03   2.99   7.63   7.64   7.71

I don't know whether gcc is just producing an inefficient CRC32 compared to
2x32 but the results seem very odd.... There must be something else we are
missing?


Kind regards,

Mark.

------------------------
WebBased Ltd
South West Technology Centre
Tamar Science Park
Plymouth
PL6 8BT 

T: +44 (0)1752 797131
F: +44 (0)1752 791023
W: http://www.webbased.co.uk