Re: Sun performance - Major discovery!

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sun performance - Major discovery!
Date: 2003-10-08 17:43:31
Message-ID: 1065635011.3424.25.camel@tokyo
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 11:46, Jeff wrote:
> Yeah - like I expected it was able to generate much better code for
> _bt_checkkeys which was the #1 function in gcc on both sun & linux.
>
> and as you can see, suncc was just able to generate much nicer code.

What CFLAGS does configure pick for gcc? From
src/backend/template/solaris, I'd guess it's not enabling any
optimization. Is that the case? If so, some gcc numbers with -O and -O2
would be useful.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-10-08 17:44:17 Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -d doesn't display output
Previous Message Neil Conway 2003-10-08 17:38:53 confused about bit strings

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-10-08 17:49:55 Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-08 17:28:53 Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL