X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E8B9FA5BE for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:15:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75909-06 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:15:32 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D79D9FA12F for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:15:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [84.143.14.54] (helo=pse.dyndns.org) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKxQS-1Fq8jg0Ouj-0001XH; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:15:13 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.103] (helo=[192.168.0.103]) by pse.dyndns.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1Fq8jc-0002rV-Lp; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:15:08 +0200 Message-ID: <448EBA5A.8020503@pse-consulting.de> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:15:06 +0200 From: Andreas Pflug User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Berkus CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Leigh Dyer , Alex Turner , Steve Atkins Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? References: <1150151282.14661.42.camel@tigger> <33c6269f0606121926p15107d2fq9d395460269e2e53@mail.gmail.com> <448E25FB.1080902@eclinic.com.au> <200606122134.07510.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <200606122134.07510.josh@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:0ce7ee5c3478b8d72edd8e05ccd40b70 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/184 X-Sequence-Number: 19541 Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > > In which case, why was 64-bit such a big deal? > We had this discussion with 16/32 bit too, back in those 286/386 times... Not too many 16bit apps left now :-) Regards, Andreas