Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:34:00 +0100
From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
Message-ID: <20061211133400.GA25821@uio.no>
Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <8a0c7af10612101141n2c7727c3r2f92345753960808@mail.gmail.com>
	<430d92a20612101336r3de8862coe618277fccb4006a@mail.gmail.com>
	<8a0c7af10612101702i49b5a533v4a2300d90d9dae6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061211021847.GE16692@mathom.us>
	<8a0c7af10612110305u305124b2v3d63491b5f57a86b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061211112547.GA24571@uio.no>
	<8a0c7af10612110509r7b1d5a5er68d4efd32c8c0e1e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8a0c7af10612110509r7b1d5a5er68d4efd32c8c0e1e@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:09:13AM -0200, Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote:
>> You know what? I don't.
> So test it yourself.

You're making the claims, you're supposed to be proving them...

> As I said, it is an example. Take floatpoint divisions. You have
> plenty of ways of doing it: 387, MMX, SSE, 3dNow, etc... Here GCC have
> to make a choice. 

No, you don't. MMX, SSE and 3Dnow! will all give you the wrong result
(reduced precision). SSE2, on the other hand, has double precision floats, so
you might have a choice there -- except that PostgreSQL doesn't really do a
lot of floating-point anyhow.

> And this is only one case. Usually, compiler optimizations are really
> complex and the processor's timings counts a lot.

You keep asserting this, with no good backing.

> If you still can't imagine any case, you can read Intel's assembler
> reference. You'll see that there are a lot of ways of doing a lot of
> things.

I've been programming x86 assembler for ten years or so...

> Steinar, you should really test it. I won't read the PostgreSQL source
> to point you were it could use SSE or SSE2 or whatever. And I won't
> read glibc's code.

Then you should stop making these sort of wild claims.

> You don't need to belive in what I'm saying. You can read GCC docs,
> Intel's assembler reference, AMD's docs about their processor and
> about how diferent that arch is.

I have.

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/