Re: Is *fast* 32-bit support still important?

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is *fast* 32-bit support still important?
Date: 2024-07-30 09:06:29
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TO+QUYf7B3zBj+7Pf3ikEfOub0D-X7JnH1qJ2jvaXwAwg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Joel,

Here are my two cents.

> 1. Who are the current users of 32-bit PostgreSQL?

Pretty much any embedded system that uses just a few GB of memory may
win from using a 32-bit processor (not necessarily in terms of
performance, maybe in terms of price). Think of WiFi-routers, smart
TVs, 3D printers, etc.

Generally speaking it's hard to give an exact answer due to lack of
"telemetry" in PostgreSQL.

> 2. Among these users, how many are upgrading to new major versions?

I would guess it very much depends on the product and manufacturer. I
wouldn't assume though that users of 32-bit systems don't do major
upgrades. (Not to mention that it's beneficial for us to test the code
on 32-bit systems.)

> 3. For how many of these users is performance critical?

Depends on how you define performance. Performance of a single OLTP
query is important. The performance of the upgrade procedure is
probably not that important. The ability of processing a lot of data
is probably also not extremely important, at least I wouldn't expect a
lot of data and/or fast storage devices on 32-bit systems.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2024-07-30 09:12:11 Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs
Previous Message shveta malik 2024-07-30 09:06:24 Re: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication