| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Steven Winfield <Steven(dot)Winfield(at)cantabcapital(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GCC 8.3.0 vs. 9.0.1 |
| Date: | 2019-05-07 17:28:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmvCYeQUVgaoeQBxKpBoGU8v4vbNPObFeydBjNcW2SQNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:06 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Given the described test setup, I'd put basically no stock in these
> numbers. It's unlikely that this test case's performance is CPU-bound
> per se; more likely, I/O and lock contention are dominant factors.
> So I'm afraid whatever they're measuring is a more-or-less chance
> effect rather than a real system-wide code improvement.
Or a compiler bug. Link-time optimizations give the compiler a view of
the program as a whole, not just a single TU at a time. This enables
it to perform additional aggressive optimization.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-07 17:32:45 | Re: GCC 8.3.0 vs. 9.0.1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-07 17:05:59 | Re: GCC 8.3.0 vs. 9.0.1 |