Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>,<david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>,<aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date: 2012-01-04 13:35:19
Message-ID: 4F040137020000250004430C@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:

> My focus was on getting something working first, then tuning. If
> we're agreed that we have everything apart from the tuning then we
> can proceed with tests to see which works better.

Sure. I just think you are there already except for what I got into.

FWIW, moving the modulus application out of the loop is a very
trivial change and has no affect on the results; it's strictly a
performance issue.

-Kevin

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2012-01-04 13:41:58 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2012-01-04 13:31:57 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2