Re: [DOCS] Some minor error fixes

[Peter Eisentraut]

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?

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


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

[Alexander Law]

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?
>



--