From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
---|---|
To: | Anthony Presley <anthony(at)resolution(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Date: | 2006-06-13 02:16:27 |
Message-ID: | 20060613021627.GA4682@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I've been trying to track this stuff - in fact, I'll likely be
switching from AMD32 to AMD64 in the next few weeks.
I believe I have a handle on the + vs - of 64-bit. It makes sense that
full 64-bit would be slower. At an extreme it halfs the amount of
available memory or doubles the required memory bandwidth, depending
on the work load.
Has anybody taken a look at PostgreSQL to ensure that it uses 32-bit
integers instead of 64-bit integers where only 32-bit is necessary?
32-bit offsets instead of 64-bit pointers? This sort of thing?
I haven't. I'm meaning to take a look. Within registers, 64-bit should
be equal speed to 32-bit. Outside the registers, it would make sense
to only deal with the lower 32-bits where 32-bits is all that is
required.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Turner | 2006-06-13 02:26:05 | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-06-13 01:50:27 | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |