Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer

From: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Patvs <patvs(at)chello(dot)nl>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer
Date: 2009-07-06 19:27:15
Message-ID: 4A525013.3030708@mark.mielke.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 07/06/2009 06:23 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Craig Ringer (craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au) wrote:
>
>> What that does mean, though, is that if you don't have significantly
>> more RAM than a 32-bit machine can address (say, 6 to 8 GB), you should
>> stick with 32-bit binaries.
>>
>
> I'm not sure this is always true since on the amd64/em64t platforms
> you'll get more registers and whatnot in 64-bit mode which can offset
> the pointer size increases.
>

Which leads to other things like faster calling conventions...

Even if you only have 4 GB of RAM, the 32-bit kernel needs to fight with
"low memory" vs "high memory", whereas 64-bit has a clean address space.

All things being equal, I recommend 64-bit.

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke<mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message justin 2009-07-06 23:16:21 Re: Bundling postgreSQL with my Java application
Previous Message Dave Page 2009-07-06 13:48:59 Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer