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 6B8799FA5BE for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:42:28 -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 71581-05 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:42:25 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.Mi8.com (d01gw01.mi8.com [63.240.6.47]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1099FA12F for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:42:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.112 by mail.Mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D1)); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:42:12 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 241911D6-425B-44B9-A073-E3FE0F8FC774 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01SMTP02.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:42:12 -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 12:42:11 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:42:08 -0700 Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Sven Geisler" cc: "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? Thread-Index: AcaO5shBBuxX4PraEdqT/wAWy4o9DA== In-Reply-To: <448EA989.5000408@aeccom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 12:42:12.0137 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAB8D190:01C68EE6] X-WSS-ID: 68906D2E1N411507765-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/179 X-Sequence-Number: 19536 Sven, On 6/13/06 5:03 AM, "Sven Geisler" 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