Subject: Re: Some minor error fixes
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <571470D8.50907@gmail.com>
 <88f42cdc-48fe-aeb9-60e7-e27587621a55@2ndquadrant.com>
 <572A09ED.8050204@gmail.com>
 <e6d74d55-3c62-4782-9055-5767564a5220@2ndquadrant.com>
 <572A47DB.60304@gmail.com>
 <3b2f1642-7d31-f0e8-4ef1-9205d6fa5383@2ndquadrant.com>
 <5736C475.3030405@gmail.com>
 <ac00950b-793b-2c49-a280-3d610e7516ae@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alexander Law <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: "pgsql-docs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>, bruce@momjian.us
Message-ID: <5788613E.5020405@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:06:22 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ac00950b-793b-2c49-a280-3d610e7516ae@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Thank you, Peter.

Regarding 1, you're right, I didn't see "per row" in that sentence and 
decided that it was total overhead (and then again I should change nsec 
to msec).

Regarding 6, please look at the old documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/pgcrypto.html#PGCRYPTO-HASH-SPEED-TABLE
It contains "crypt-bf/5 | 211" in the table and "john -test shows 213 
loops/sec for crypt-bf/5" below the table. (The difference is 2 loops 
per second).

Current documentation:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/pgcrypto.html#PGCRYPTO-HASH-SPEED-TABLE
contains:
"crypt-bf/5     13504" in the table (number is increased with the faster 
CPU) and still "john -test shows 213 loops/sec for crypt-bf/5" below the 
table.
So I propose to change 213 below the table to 13504 + 2 (previous 
difference).
Or maybe we should rerun all the benchmarks and update all the numbers 
(see commit d6464fdc).

Best wishes,
Alexander


15.07.2016 05:36, Peter Eisentraut пишет:
> On 5/14/16 2:23 AM, Alexander Law wrote:
>> Please look at the following errors/fixes.
> I've applied 2, 3, 4, 5.
>
> 1 was correct according to my math. (115.9-9.8)/100000*1000*1000 = 1061
>
> 6 looked too complicated to me. ;-)  Can you explain where you got your
> number from?
>


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs