Tom Lane wrote: > "Mark Cave-Ayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I was just researching some articles on compression (zlib) and I saw mention > > of the Adler-32 algorithm which is supposed to be slightly less accurate > > than an equivalent CRC calculation but significantly faster to compute. I > > haven't located a good paper comparing the error rates of the two different > > checksums, > > ... probably because there isn't one. With all due respect to the Zip > guys, I doubt anyone has done anywhere near the analysis on Adler-32 > that has been done on CRCs. I'd much prefer to stick with true CRC > and drop it to 32 bits than go with a less-tested algorithm. Throwing > more bits at the problem doesn't necessarily create a safer checksum.
Agreed. 64-bit was overkill when we added it, and it is now shown to be a performance problem. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
