From: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Xeon twice the performance of opteron
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:54:17 -0700
Message-ID: <4D823CB9.9090906@emolecules.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimeWk=QKbjWPLBnDQUAqf2WXabJ80wTmeEby=Nt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AAC806D7-56CD-4BC3-A449-83771F818A4B@torgo.978.org>
<AANLkTimeWk=QKbjWPLBnDQUAqf2WXabJ80wTmeEby=Nt@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/17/11 9:42 AM, J Sisson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Jeff<threshar@torgo.978.org> wrote:
>> hey folks,
>>
>> Running into some odd performance issues between a few of our db boxes.
> We've noticed similar results both in OLTP and data warehousing conditions here.
>
> Opteron machines just seem to lag behind *especially* in data
> warehousing. Smaller
> cache for sorting/etc... is what I'd always chalked it up to, but I'm
> open to other theories
> if they exist.
We had a similar result with a different CPU-intensive open-source package, and discovered that if we compiled it on the Opteron it ran almost twice as fast as binaries compiled on Intel hardware. We thought we could compile once, run everywhere, but it's not true. It must have been some specific optimization difference between Intel and AMD that the gcc compiler knows about. I don't know if that's the case here, but it's a thought.
Craig
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: craig_james@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: Xeon twice the performance of opteron
In-Reply-To: <4D823CB9.9090906@emolecules.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