Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
Subject: Re: data checksums
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
In-Reply-To: <15AB8DDB-7D4B-4272-801F-F5DD84E829E6@thebuild.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 09:41:18 +0200
Cc: bruno vieira da silva <brunogiovs@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DDF016B5-F5CD-4143-A2C7-89BDE6F61FBE@yesql.se>
References: <CAB+Nuk8y88kvoRHsfN2Pjed9o_iM+9FbveU=4P8G0EQbzFP+qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <15AB8DDB-7D4B-4272-801F-F5DD84E829E6@thebuild.com>
To: Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/DDF016B5-F5CD-4143-A2C7-89BDE6F61FBE%40yesql.se>
Precedence: bulk

> On 6 Aug 2024, at 18:29, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 2024, at 08:11, bruno vieira da silva =
<brunogiovs@gmail.com> wrote:

>> the pg doc=20
>> mentions a considerable performance penality, how considerable it is?
>=20
> That line is probably somewhat out of date at this point.  We haven't =
seen a significant slowdown in enabling them on any modern hardware.  I =
always turn them on, except on the type of filesystems/hardware =
mentioned above.

The last in-depth analysis of data checksums (and hint bits) overhead =
that I
can remember is from 2019:

  =
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190330192543.GH4719%40development

Hardware advances in the last five years may very well have made these =
findings
irrelevant however.

--
Daniel Gustafsson