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
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 |