DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=dLU7lOIznHle9ePhp848+tTT254efG2rPcIL9o+Lnd6wmoXPznr8t4/MYVxASn+uBCWcbMjYDw9Zg0Jle+b0AVPfKRgCTbBEmeY/JmXEC4NSw9cNfkDvtlm3ZjIYM4BybxvMrl1nrEck4csWVJfhzd4GDKAOm+xZLwnxQ5DtuL4=
Message-ID: <8a0c7af10612110545y46dda059l422d08be151bc709@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:45:59 -0200
From: "Daniel van Ham Colchete" <daniel.colchete@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
In-Reply-To: <20061211133400.GA25821@uio.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <8a0c7af10612101141n2c7727c3r2f92345753960808@mail.gmail.com>
	<430d92a20612101336r3de8862coe618277fccb4006a@mail.gmail.com>
	<8a0c7af10612101702i49b5a533v4a2300d90d9dae6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061211021847.GE16692@mathom.us>
	<8a0c7af10612110305u305124b2v3d63491b5f57a86b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061211112547.GA24571@uio.no>
	<8a0c7af10612110509r7b1d5a5er68d4efd32c8c0e1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061211133400.GA25821@uio.no>

On 12/11/06, Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:09:13AM -0200, Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote:
> >> You know what? I don't.
> > So test it yourself.
>
> You're making the claims, you're supposed to be proving them...
>
> > As I said, it is an example. Take floatpoint divisions. You have
> > plenty of ways of doing it: 387, MMX, SSE, 3dNow, etc... Here GCC have
> > to make a choice.
>
> No, you don't. MMX, SSE and 3Dnow! will all give you the wrong result
> (reduced precision). SSE2, on the other hand, has double precision floats, so
> you might have a choice there -- except that PostgreSQL doesn't really do a
> lot of floating-point anyhow.
>
> > And this is only one case. Usually, compiler optimizations are really
> > complex and the processor's timings counts a lot.
>
> You keep asserting this, with no good backing.
>
> > If you still can't imagine any case, you can read Intel's assembler
> > reference. You'll see that there are a lot of ways of doing a lot of
> > things.
>
> I've been programming x86 assembler for ten years or so...
So, I'm a newbie to you. I learned x86 assembler last year.

> > Steinar, you should really test it. I won't read the PostgreSQL source
> > to point you were it could use SSE or SSE2 or whatever. And I won't
> > read glibc's code.
>
> Then you should stop making these sort of wild claims.
>
> > You don't need to belive in what I'm saying. You can read GCC docs,
> > Intel's assembler reference, AMD's docs about their processor and
> > about how diferent that arch is.
>
> I have.
>
> /* Steinar */

Okay, I'll do the benchmarks. Just sent an e-mail about this to the
list. If you have any sugestions of how to make the benchmark please
let-me know.
I like when I prove myself wrong. Although it's much better when I'm
right :-)...

Best regards,
Daniel Colchete