X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFDD329E7F for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66758-07 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:01:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBF1329E76 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8IH1g21005186; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:01:42 -0400 (EDT) To: Manfred Spraul Cc: Marc Colosimo , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: tweaking MemSet() performance - 7.4.5 In-reply-to: <414C567C.3060503@colorfullife.com> References: <8A6E7DA4-0654-11D9-800C-000A95A5D8B2@mitre.org> <24165.1095450900@sss.pgh.pa.us> <414C567C.3060503@colorfullife.com> Comments: In-reply-to Manfred Spraul message dated "Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:38:36 +0200" Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:01:42 -0400 Message-ID: <5185.1095526902@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200409/553 X-Sequence-Number: 59119 Manfred Spraul writes: > That's the price you pay for weakly ordered memory access. > Linux on ppc uses eieio, on ppc64 lwsync is used. Could you check if > they are faster? I recall looking at lwsync and being concerned about portability problems --- older assemblers will fail to recognize it. I'd want to see some hard evidence that changing sync to lwsync would be a significant performance win before taking any portability risk here. regards, tom lane