Re: Re: CRC

Bruce Guenter <bruceg@em.ca> writes:
>> Are you really saying MD5 was faster than CRC-32?

> Yes.  I expect it's because the operations used in MD5 are easily
> parallelized, and operate on blocks of 64-bytes at a time, while the CRC
> is mostly non-parallelizable, uses a table lookup, and operates on
> single bytes.

What MD5 implementation did you use?  The one I have handy (the original
RSA reference version) sure looks like it's more computation per byte
than a CRC.
        regards, tom lane