On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 09:40:22PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:22:22AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > So essentially the argument is - if you have hw crypto acceleration (aka
> > > AES-NI), then the overhead of all-cluster encryption is so low it does
> > > not make sense to bother with lowering it with column encryption.
> >
> > Yes, I think that is true. Column-level encryption can be useful in
> > giving different people control of the keys, but I think that feature
> > should be developed at the SQL level so clients can unlock the key and
> > backups include the encryption keys.
> >
>
> FWIW that's not how the column encryption (at least in Oracle works). It
> uses the same encryption keys (with 2-tier key architecture), and the
> keys are stored in a wallet. The user only supplies a passphrase (well,
> a DBA does that, because it happens only once after the instance starts).
>
> Not sure what exactly you mean by "SQL level" but I agree it's clearly
> much higher up the stack than encryption at the block level.
Right, what I was saying is that column encryption where they keys are
unlocked by the administrator are really only useful to reduce
encryption overhead, and I think we will find it just isn't worth the
API complexity to allow that.
Per-user keys are useful for cases beyond performance, but require
SQL-level control.
> > > IMO that's a good argument against column encryption (at least when used
> > > to reduce overhead), although 10% still quite a bit.
> >
> > I think that test was a worst-case one and I think it needs to be
> > optimized before we draw any conclusions.
>
> What test? I was really referring to the PDF, which talks about 10%
> threshold for the tablespace encryption. And in another section it says
>
> Internal benchmark tests and customers reported a performance impact of 4
> to 8% in end-user response time, and an increase of 1 to 5% in CPU usage.
>
> Of course, this is not on PostgreSQL, but I'd expect to have comparable
> overhead, despite architectural differences. Ultimately, even if it's 15
> or 20%, the general rule is likely to remain the same, i.e. column
> encryption has significantly higher overhead, and can only beat
> tablespace encryption when very small fraction of columns is encrypted.
Right, and I doubt it will be worth it, but I think we need to complete
all-cluster encryption and then run some tests so see what the overhead
is.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +