X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC499FA4A8 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:00:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41355-04 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:00:19 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:31:57.684 by SQLgrey- Received: from fire1.inventconnect.com (fire1.inventorshelpline.info [66.155.165.134]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CA89FA10A for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:00:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from nas1.inventconnect.com (nas.inventconnect.com [192.168.2.30]) by fire1.inventconnect.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5D03kWE026119 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:03:46 -0400 Received: from monster1.resolution.com ([192.168.5.100]) by nas1.inventconnect.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5CKpKXR020809 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:51:20 -0400 Received: from tigger (tigger [192.168.5.10]) by monster1.resolution.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5D0ChsZ024964 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:12:43 -0500 Subject: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? From: Anthony Presley To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:28:02 -0500 Message-Id: <1150151282.14661.42.camel@tigger> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-resolutionsystems-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-resolutionsystems-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-resolutionsystems-MailScanner-From: anthony@resolution.com X-PTI-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-PTI-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anthony@resolution.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/143 X-Sequence-Number: 19500 Hi all! I had an interesting discussion today w/ an Enterprise DB developer and sales person, and was told, twice, that the 64-bit linux version of Enterprise DB (which is based on the 64-bit version of PostgreSQL 8.1) is SIGNIFICANTLY SLOWER than the 32-bit version. Since the guys of EDB are PostgreSQL ..... has anyone seen that the 64-bit is slower than the 32-bit version? I was told that the added 32-bits puts a "strain" and extra "overhead" on the processor / etc.... which actually slows down the pointers and necessary back-end "stuff" on the database. I'm curious if anyone can back this up .... or debunk it. It's about the polar opposite of everything I've heard from every other database vendor for the past several years, and would be quite an eye-opener for me. Anyone? Thanks. -- Anthony