Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC

[Tom Lane]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> Thinking about it, I suspect that any CRC implementation that can't outrun 
> MD5 by a wide margin is seriously sub-optimal.

I was finding that hard to believe, too, at least for CRC-32 (CRC-64
would take more code, so I'm not so sure about it).

Is that 64-bit code you pointed us to before actually a CRC, or
something else?  It doesn't call itself a CRC, and I was having a hard
time extracting anything definite (like the polynomial) from all the
bit-pushing underbrush :-(

                        regards, tom lane