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 632659FB1CC for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:10:44 -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 57935-08 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:10:40 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D249FA430 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:10:40 -0300 (ADT) 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 k71CAYtw000858; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:10:34 -0400 (EDT) To: guoping.zhang@nec.com.au cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Are there any performance penalty for opposite edian platform combinations.... In-reply-to: <001401c6b527$85406620$74304c93@eddy> References: <001401c6b527$85406620$74304c93@eddy> Comments: In-reply-to "Guoping Zhang" message dated "Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:01:15 +1000" Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:10:34 -0400 Message-ID: <857.1154434234@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.193 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/4 X-Sequence-Number: 20189 "Guoping Zhang" writes: > In fact, it is a general question that "Is it a good practice we shall avoid > to run application server and database server on the platform with opposite > edian? or it simply doesn't matter"? Our network protocol uses big-endian consistently, so there will be some tiny hit for little-endian machines, independently of what's on the other end of the wire. I can't imagine you could measure the difference though. regards, tom lane