From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... |
Date: | 2002-09-10 03:18:38 |
Message-ID: | 20020910031838.GV26147@ninja1.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > My feeling is that gcc -O2 is quite well tested with the PG
> > > > code. I don't have any equivalent confidence in -O6. Give it
> > > > a shot for beta-testing, for sure, but I'm iffy about calling
> > > > that a production-grade database release...
> > >
> > > And of course the big question is whether you will see any
> > > performance improvement with -O6 vs. -O2. My guess is no.
> >
> > Agreed, however some of the loop-unrolling might prove to have
> > some optimization, but we'll see. I'd like to think that there's
> > some actual value in -O6 beyond the geek appeal of being able to
> > say it's been compiled with all the optimizations possible.
> > ::shrug::
>
> And you think the answer is ... I think we all know what the answer
> is. :-)
I think the newbie/l33t geek appeal of being able to say something's
compiled and works with -O6 is probably worth more in terms of
marketing than it is interms of actual technical merrit. Those that
need 10K lookups per second should be serializing data into a bdb file
with a unique key and not using a relational database (or helping out
with pgsql-replication). :~) -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Howe | 2002-09-10 03:25:48 | Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-10 03:04:58 | Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... |