| From: | Nulik Nol <nuliknol(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CUDA Sorting |
| Date: | 2011-09-20 21:00:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAHO6xe9AyMc+XA=k5XZpTr+LHyE8NThcULy+1JuuMQzeE=vOWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I already did some benchmarks with GPU sorting (not in pgsql), and
> measured total sort times, copy bandwidth and energy usage, and got
> some exciting results:
Was that qsort implementation on CPU cache friendly and optimized for SSE ?
To make a fair comparison you have to take the best CPU implementation
and compare it to best GPU implementation. Because if not, you are
comparing full throttled GPU vs lazy CPU.
Check this paper on how hash join was optimized 17x when SSE
instructions were used.
www.vldb.org/pvldb/2/vldb09-257.pdf
Regards
--
==================================
The power of zero is infinite
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MUHAMMAD ASIF | 2011-09-20 21:24:19 | PostgreSQL X/Open Socket / BSD Socket Issue on HP-UX |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-20 20:38:52 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |