From: | Sven Geisler <sgeisler(at)aeccom(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Date: | 2006-06-13 12:46:51 |
Message-ID: | 448EB3BB.9030504@aeccom.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Luke
Luke Lonergan schrieb:
> Sven,
> On 6/13/06 5:03 AM, "Sven Geisler" <sgeisler(at)aeccom(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yes, I know. We had a problem last year with the performance of the
>> Opteron. We have started the futex patch to resolve the issue. The futex
>> patch itself did have no effect, but there was a side effect because the
>> futex patch did use also another assembler sequence. This make a hole
>> difference on a Opteron. It turned out that removing the lines
>>
>> cmpb
>> jne
>> lock
>>
>> was the reason why the Opteron runs faster.
>> I have created a sequence of larger query with following result on
>> Opteron 875 and PostgreSQL 8.0.3
>> orignal 8.0.3 => 289 query/time and 10% cpu usage
>> patched 8.0.3 => 1022 query/time and 45% cpu usage
>
> This was in 64-bit mode on the Opteron?
This was in 32-bit mode on the Opteron. But the effect was the same in
64-bit mode with PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
You already get this change if you compile PostgreSQL 8.1.x in x86_64
(64-bit mode).
Cheers
Sven.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-06-13 12:49:44 | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Previous Message | Antoine | 2006-06-13 12:43:45 | OT - select + must have from - sql standard syntax? |