Re: WAL CPU overhead/optimization (was Master-slave visibility order)
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL CPU overhead/optimization (was Master-slave visibility order) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 522653AD.7000804@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL CPU overhead/optimization (was Master-slave visibility order) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL CPU overhead/optimization (was Master-slave
visibility order)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/03/2013 05:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at> wrote: >> I might give it a shot later this cycle as I have familiarized my self >> with the problem domain anyway. I understand the appeal of staying >> with what we have, but this would cap the speedup at 4x and has large >> caveats with the extra lookup tables. A 28x speedup might be worth the >> extra effort. > I agree. However, on the flip side, a bird in the hand is worth two > in the bush. A patch that just does the same thing faster is likely > to be less controversial than changing the algorithm, and does not > preclude changing the algorithm later. > Has anybody looked at the recent i5/i7 added hrdware support for CRC32 ? http://www.strchr.com/crc32_popcnt From number there it is probably still slower than xxhash, but it might be worth doing as an interim optimisation. Cheers -- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: