Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20309F9F08 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:08:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53479-06 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:08:15 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from westnet.com (westnet.com [216.187.52.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735B49F946C for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:08:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBCG8E5a010817 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:08:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.13.8/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id kBCG8Exc010814 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:08:14 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:08:14 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations In-Reply-To: <25262.1165906048@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: References: <87u002mv49.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com> <8a0c7af10612110531sbb019ck259fb16d131fdb50@mail.gmail.com> <60psaq5t94.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <20061211173105.GH16692@mathom.us> <20061211184726.GI16692@mathom.us> <457DA782.3060506@modgraph-usa.com> <8a0c7af10612111422x6bdcc0c2p7cbfeb5a7b0e0374@mail.gmail.com> <20061212013706.GM16692@mathom.us> <25262.1165906048@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/298 X-Sequence-Number: 22354 On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > Um, you entirely missed the point: the hardware speedups you mention are > quite independent of any compiler options. The numbers we are looking > at are the relative speeds of two different compiles on the same > hardware, not whether hardware A is faster than hardware B. The point that I failed to make clear is that expecting Mike's system to perform like Daniel's just because they have similar processors isn't realistic, considering the changes that happened in the underlying hardware during that period. Having very different memory subsystems will shift which optimizations are useful and which have minimal impact even if the processor is basically the same. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD