> >> Results for pgbench scale 100:
> >> No checksums: tps = 56623.819783
> >> Fletcher checksums: tps = 55282.222687 (1.024x slowdown)
> >> CRC Checksums: tps = 50571.324795 (1.120x slowdown)
> >> SIMD Checksums: tps = 56608.888985 (1.000x slowdown)
> >>
> >> So to conclude, the 3 approaches:
> >
> > Great analysis. Still a tough choice.
+1
> > One thing that might be interesting is to look at doing SIMD for both
> > data and WAL. I wonder if that would be a noticeable speedup for WAL
> > full-page writes? That would give greater justification for the extra
> > work it will take (intrinsics/ASM), and it would be a nice win for
> > non-checksum users.
>
> Andres showed that switching out the existing CRC for zlib's would
> result in 8-30% increase in INSERT-SELECT speed
> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201005202227.49990.andres@anarazel.de)
> with the speeded up CRC still showing up as 10% of the profile. So I
> guess another 5% speedup by doing the CRC 8 bytes at a time instead of
> the used 4. And another couple % by using Fletcher or SIMD.
I am not sure the considerations for WAL are the same as for page checksums -
the current WAL code only computes the CRCs in rather small chunks, so very
pipelineable algorithms/implementations don't necessarly show the same benefit
for WAL as they do for page checksums...
And even if the checksumming were to be changed to compute the CRC in larger
chunks - a very sensible thing imo - it would still be relatively small sizes
in many workloads.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services