| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Magne Mæhre <Magne(dot)Mahre(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm |
| Date: | 2007-11-15 03:12:48 |
| Message-ID: | 473BB930.9080902@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> I've got one upstairs (HPPA), and I believe that it's actually a pretty
>> common situation in scientifically-oriented workstations from a few
>> years back.
>
> Last I checked, scientific workstations aren't exactly a common platform for
> PostgreSQL servers.
>
> The question is, for our most common platforms (like AMD and Intel) is the FPU
> notably slower/more contended than integer division? I'd the impression that
> it was, but my knowledge of chip architectures is liable to be out of date.
>
> Can we have a hardware geek speak up?
>
http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intspd.htm
http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/fpspeed.htm
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2007-11-15 03:19:20 | Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-11-15 02:57:18 | Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm |