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 E71F29FA5BE for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:33:39 -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 66626-01 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:33:31 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw02.mi8.com [63.240.6.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFE39FA12F for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:33:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.110 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D2)); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:33:23 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 7829E76E-BB9E-4995-8473-3C0929DF7DD1 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01SMTP01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:33:23 -0400 Received: from 69.181.100.71 ([69.181.100.71]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:33:22 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:33:19 -0700 Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Sven Geisler" , "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? Thread-Index: AcaO3Ssuad4tI/rQEdqT/wAWy4o9DA== In-Reply-To: <448E7FA0.5030006@aeccom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 11:33:23.0394 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DCCA220:01C68EDD] X-WSS-ID: 68907D092DC9186341-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/174 X-Sequence-Number: 19531 Sven, On 6/13/06 2:04 AM, "Sven Geisler" 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