Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75439FA22C for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:50:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53507-06 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:50:09 -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 1A3E59FA2EC for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:50:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBFEoFAU009284 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:50:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.13.8/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id kBFEoFEo009281 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:50:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:50:15 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: Postgresql Performance list Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4CD99FDA-14B5-4EA9-9440-55E2548C34C1@purefiction.net> <09D6591B-4AA9-4994-BED6-0C7C583BF933@purefiction.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/408 X-Sequence-Number: 22464 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Merlin Moncure wrote: > The slower is probably due to the unroll loops switch which can > actually hurt code due to the larger footprint (less cache coherency). The cache issues are so important with current processors that I'd suggest throwing -Os (optimize for size) into the mix people test. That one may stack usefully with -O2, but probably not with -O3 (3 includes optimizations that increase code size). -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD