From: | William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Caching by Postgres |
Date: | 2005-08-24 18:54:42 |
Message-ID: | deifpn$2rp5$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Donald Courtney wrote:
> I built postgreSQL 8.1 64K bit on solaris 10 a few months ago
> and side by side with the 32 bit postgreSQL build saw no improvement. In
> fact the 64 bit result was slightly lower.
I'm not surprised 32-bit binaries running on a 64-bit OS would be faster
than 64-bit/64-bit. 64-bit isn't some magical wand you wave and it's all
ok. Programs compiled as 64-bit will only run faster if (1) you need
64-bit address space and you've been using ugly hacks like PAE to get
access to memory > 2GB or (2) you need native 64-bit data types and
you've been using ugly hacks to piece 32-bit ints together (example,
encryption/compression). In most cases, 64-bit will run slightly slower
due to extra overhead of using larger datatypes.
Since PostgreSQL hands off the majority of memory management/data
caching to the OS, only the OS needs to be 64-bit to reap the benefits
of better memory management. Since Postgres *ALREADY* reaps the 64-bit
benefit, I'm not sure how the argument moving caching/mm/fs into
Postgres would apply. Yes there's the point about possibly implementing
better/smarter/more appropriate caching algorithms but that has nothing
to do with 64-bit.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-08-24 18:59:12 | Re: Some ideas for comment |
Previous Message | Alan Stange | 2005-08-24 18:47:09 | Re: Caching by Postgres |