On 2013-04-13 10:58:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2013-04-13 09:14:26 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> As I understand it, SIMD is just a CPU-optimized method for producing a > >> CRC checksum. Is that right? Does it produce the same result as a > >> non-CPU-optimized CRC calculation? > > > No we are talking about a different algorithm that results in different > > results, thats why its important to choose now since we can't change it > > later without breaking pg_upgrade in further releases. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD_%28hash_function%29 > > [ squint... ] We're talking about a *cryptographic* hash function? > Why in the world was this considered a good idea for page checksums?
In Ants' implementation its heck of a lot of faster than any CRC implementation we have seen so far on relatively large blocks (like pages). pgbench results: ca+csw_uxo-frkuzl0yzs0wsdl8dipzv-ugmvyn-yv45sgub...@mail.gmail.com byte/cycle comparison: CA+CSw_su1fopLNBz1NAfkSNw4_=gv+5pf0kdlqmpvukw1q4...@mail.gmail.com > In the first place, it's probably not very fast compared to some > alternatives, and in the second place, the criteria by which people > would consider it a good crypto hash function have approximately nothing > to do with what we need for a checksum function. What we want for a > checksum function is high probability of detection of common hardware > failure modes, such as burst errors and all-zeroes. This is > particularly critical when we're going with only a 16-bit checksum --- > the probabilities need to be skewed in the right direction, or it's not > going to be all that terribly useful. > > CRCs are known to be good for that sort of thing; it's what they were > designed for. I'd like to see some evidence that any substitute > algorithm has similar properties. Without that, I'm going to vote > against this idea. Ants has dome some analysis on this, like CA+CSw_tMoA85e=1vs4omjzjg2mr_hulikovpd80dp5rurds...@mail.gmail.com . That doesn't look bad to me and unless I am missing something its better than our CRC with 16bit. So while I would say its not 100% researched there has been a rather detailed investigation by Ants - I am rather impressed. My biggest doubt so far is the reliance on inline assembly for the top performance on x86-64 and a generic implementation otherwise that only is really fast with appropriate compiler flags.. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers