From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Sven Geisler <sgeisler@aeccom.com>
To: Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail)) <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:33:19 -0700
Message-ID: <C0B3F08F.26F80%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448E7FA0.5030006@aeccom.com>
Sven,
On 6/13/06 2:04 AM, "Sven Geisler" <sgeisler@aeccom.com> wrote:
> Please find attached a small patch with does apply a change to the
> x86_64 part also to the i386 part of src/include/storage/s_lock.h.
> Without this change the performance of PostgreSQL 8.0 was horrible on a
> Opteron. The effect is smaller with PostgreSQL 8.1.
Can you describe what kinds of tests you ran to check your speed?
Since it's the TAS lock that you are patching, the potential impact is
diffuse and large: xlog.c, shmem.c, lwlock.c, proc.c, all do significant
work.
- Luke
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: llonergan@greenplum.com, sgeisler@aeccom.com
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
In-Reply-To: <C0B3F08F.26F80%llonergan@greenplum.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