From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, "Anthony Presley" <anthony(at)resolution(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Date: | 2006-06-13 02:57:32 |
Message-ID: | C0B377AC.26F41%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mark,
On 6/12/06 7:16 PM, "mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
> I haven't. I'm meaning to take a look. Within registers, 64-bit should
> be equal speed to 32-bit. Outside the registers, it would make sense
> to only deal with the lower 32-bits where 32-bits is all that is
> required.
The short answer to all of this as shown in many lab tests by us and
elsewhere (see prior post):
- 64-bit pgsql on Opteron is generally faster than 32-bit, often by a large
amount (20%-30%) on queries that perform sorting, aggregation, etc. It's
generally not slower.
- 64-bit pgsql on Xeon is generally slower than 32-bit by about 5%
So if you have Opterons and you want the best performance, run in 64-bit.
If you have Xeons, you would only run in 64-bit if you use more than 4GB of
memory.
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Wheeler | 2006-06-13 03:00:37 | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2006-06-13 02:51:42 | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |