From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Sven Geisler <sgeisler@aeccom.com>
Cc: Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail)) <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:42:08 -0700
Message-ID: <C0B400B0.26F9B%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448EA989.5000408@aeccom.com>
Sven,
On 6/13/06 5:03 AM, "Sven Geisler" <sgeisler@aeccom.com> wrote:
> Yes, I know. We had a problem last year with the performance of the
> Opteron. We have started the futex patch to resolve the issue. The futex
> patch itself did have no effect, but there was a side effect because the
> futex patch did use also another assembler sequence. This make a hole
> difference on a Opteron. It turned out that removing the lines
>
> cmpb
> jne
> lock
>
> was the reason why the Opteron runs faster.
> I have created a sequence of larger query with following result on
> Opteron 875 and PostgreSQL 8.0.3
> orignal 8.0.3 => 289 query/time and 10% cpu usage
> patched 8.0.3 => 1022 query/time and 45% cpu usage
This was in 64-bit mode on the Opteron?
- 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: <C0B400B0.26F9B%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