Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59FE49F9386
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:47:37 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 86889-04 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:47:33 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FCD9F931E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:47:32 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBC6lSAY025263;
	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:47:28 -0500 (EST)
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations 
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612120118340.10640@westnet.com> 
References: <87u002mv49.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com>
	<8a0c7af10612110531sbb019ck259fb16d131fdb50@mail.gmail.com>
	<60psaq5t94.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
	<E1GtolA-0008Fk-4R@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<20061211173105.GH16692@mathom.us>
	<E1Gtplp-0004Ka-GM@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<20061211184726.GI16692@mathom.us>
	<E1GtrB8-0005rw-Iu@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<457DA782.3060506@modgraph-usa.com>
	<8a0c7af10612111422x6bdcc0c2p7cbfeb5a7b0e0374@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061212013706.GM16692@mathom.us>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0612120118340.10640@westnet.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
	message dated "Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:35:04 -0500"
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:47:28 -0500
Message-ID: <25262.1165906048@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200612/275
X-Sequence-Number: 22331

Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Michael Stone wrote:
>> Can anyone else reproduce these results? I'm on similar hardware (2.5GHz P4,
>> 1.5G RAM)...

> There are two likely candidates for why Daniel's P4 3.0GHz significantly 
> outperforms your 2.5GHz system.

Um, you entirely missed the point: the hardware speedups you mention are
quite independent of any compiler options.  The numbers we are looking
at are the relative speeds of two different compiles on the same
hardware, not whether hardware A is faster than hardware B.

			regards, tom lane