Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82289F9C35 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:56:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05908-04 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:56:43 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net (vms046pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C69E9F931E for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:56:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([71.246.251.8]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JA500A8UVYDYYO2@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:56:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FF770A95 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bGGJq68kbidE for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BD4C770AD1; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:56:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:56:35 -0500 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations In-reply-to: <20061212124803.GA29167@mathom.us> To: Postgresql Performance list Mail-followup-to: Postgresql Performance list Message-id: <20061212125633.GB29167@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 References: <457EA39E.1020207@streppone.it> <20061212124803.GA29167@mathom.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/289 X-Sequence-Number: 22345 On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 07:48:06AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: >I'd be curious to see -O2 with and without the arch-specific flags, >since that's mostly what the discussion is about. That came across more harshly than I intended; I apologize for that. It's certainly a useful data point to compare the various optimization levels. I'm rerunning the tests with gcc 4.1.2 and another platform to see if that makes any difference. Mike Stone