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>
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 |