Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:32:13 +0100
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
Cc: "Mohan, Ross" <RMohan@arbinet.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Projecting currentdb to more users
Message-ID: <20050712203213.GB24958@purplebat.com>
References: <CC74E7E10A8A054798B6611BD1FEF4D307966FF5@vamail01.thexchange.com>
	<1121193674.8208.236.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<20050712200609.GA24958@purplebat.com>
	<1121199095.8208.245.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1121199095.8208.245.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Mark Rae <mrae@purplebat.com>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:11:35PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 15:06, Mark Rae wrote:
> > I think its more a case of AMD now having solid evidence to back
> > up the claims. 
> 
> Wow!  That's pretty fascinating.  So, is the evidence pretty
> overwhelming that this was not simple incompetence, but real malice?


I suppose that depends on the exact nature of the 'check'.

As far as I was aware it was more a case of 'I don't recognise this
processor, so I'll do it the slow but safe way'.

However from what AMD are claiming, it seems to be more of a 
'Its an AMD processor so I'll be deliberately slow and buggy'


Having said that, I have tried compiling PG with the intel compiler 
in the past, and haven't noticed any real difference. But in a database
there isn't much scope for vectorization and pipelining
compared with numerical code, which is where the Intel compiler
makes the greatest difference.

    -Mark