From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>
Cc: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:34:07 -0700
Message-ID: <200606122134.07510.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448E25FB.1080902@eclinic.com.au>
References: <1150151282.14661.42.camel@tigger>
<33c6269f0606121926p15107d2fq9d395460269e2e53@mail.gmail.com>
<448E25FB.1080902@eclinic.com.au>
Folks,
FWIW, the applications where I did direct 32 / 64 comparison were
a) several data warehouse tests, with databases > 100GB
b) computation-heavy applications (such as a complex calendaring app)
And, as others have pointed out, I wasn't comparing generics; I was comparing
Athalon/Xeon to Opteron. So it's quite possible that the improvements had
nothing to do with going 64-bit and were because of other architecture
improvements.
In which case, why was 64-bit such a big deal?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, leigh@eclinic.com.au, armtuk@gmail.com, steve@blighty.com
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
In-Reply-To: <200606122134.07510.josh@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox