Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7684B9F9386 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:39:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98116-02 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:39:34 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD609F9357 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:39:40 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 2BD6C30E02; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:39:39 +0100 (MET) From: Christopher Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:27:46 -0500 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 20 Message-ID: <87mz5tn68d.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com> References: <430d92a20612101336r3de8862coe618277fccb4006a@mail.gmail.com> <8a0c7af10612101702i49b5a533v4a2300d90d9dae6b@mail.gmail.com> <20061211021847.GE16692@mathom.us> <8a0c7af10612110305u305124b2v3d63491b5f57a86b@mail.gmail.com> <87u002mv49.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com> <8a0c7af10612110531sbb019ck259fb16d131fdb50@mail.gmail.com> <60psaq5t94.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <20061211173105.GH16692@mathom.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org X-message-flag: Outlook is rather hackable, isn't it? X-Home-Page: http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/ X-Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:wtfJmU1iNxgLlpBpjEag5d0JLRI= To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/273 X-Sequence-Number: 22329 After a long battle with technology, mstone+postgres@mathom.us (Michael Stone), an earthling, wrote: > [1] I will say that I have never seen a realistic benchmark of > general code where the compiler flags made a statistically > significant difference in the runtime. When we were initially trying out PostgreSQL on AIX, I did some (limited, admittedly) comparisons between behaviour when compiled using GCC 3.something, VisualAge C, and VisualAge C++. I did some modifications of -O values; I didn't find differences amounting to more than a percent or two between any of the combinations. If there's to be a difference, anywhere, it ought to have figured pretty prominently between a pretty elderly GCC version and IBM's top of the line PowerPC compiler. -- output = reverse("gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc") http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html "I doubt this language difference would confuse anybody unless you were providing instructions on the insertion of a caffeine enema." -- On alt.coffee