Re: [PERFORM] Projecting currentdb to more users

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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