From: | Mark Rae <mrae(at)purplebat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Mohan, Ross" <RMohan(at)arbinet(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Projecting currentdb to more users |
Date: | 2005-07-12 20:32:13 |
Message-ID: | 20050712203213.GB24958@purplebat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:11:35PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 15:06, Mark Rae wrote:
> > I think its more a case of AMD now having solid evidence to back
> > up the claims.
>
> Wow! That's pretty fascinating. So, is the evidence pretty
> overwhelming that this was not simple incompetence, but real malice?
I suppose that depends on the exact nature of the 'check'.
As far as I was aware it was more a case of 'I don't recognise this
processor, so I'll do it the slow but safe way'.
However from what AMD are claiming, it seems to be more of a
'Its an AMD processor so I'll be deliberately slow and buggy'
Having said that, I have tried compiling PG with the intel compiler
in the past, and haven't noticed any real difference. But in a database
there isn't much scope for vectorization and pipelining
compared with numerical code, which is where the Intel compiler
makes the greatest difference.
-Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2005-07-12 20:38:14 | Re: Checkpoints are occurring too frequently... |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-07-12 20:32:12 | Re: gborg borked again? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Arthurs | 2005-07-12 21:54:31 | Re: General DB Tuning |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-07-12 20:11:35 | Re: [PERFORM] Projecting currentdb to more users |