From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Date: | 2006-12-11 19:28:25 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150612111128n2d5e3201g815b5b188c9c247a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 12/11/06, Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net> wrote:
> Statements like these can not be reasonably interpreted in any manner
> _except_ that of presuming the results:
>
> "I expect that you'll discover, if you actually do these tests, that
> this belief (that using arch specific compiler options lead to
> better performing SW) is fairly much nonsense."
>
> "...IMO a waste of time..."
>
> etc
>
> The correct objective response to claims w/o evidence is to request
> evidence, and to do everything we can to support it being properly
> gathered. Not to try to discourage the claimant from even trying by
> ganging up on them with multiple instances of Argument From Authority
> or variations of Ad Hominem attacks.
> (The validity of the claim has nothing to do with the skills or
> experience of the claimant or anyone else in the discussion. Only on
> the evidence.)
/shrugs, this is not debate class, I just happened to have barked up
this particular tree before, and decided to share my insights from it.
A lot of the misunderstanding here stems from legacy perceptions
about how cpus work, not to mention the entire architecture. If
somebody produces hard facts to the contrary, great, and I encourage
them to do so.
also, some people posting here, not necessarily me, are authority figures. :-)
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2006-12-11 19:51:09 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Previous Message | imad | 2006-12-11 19:22:19 | Re: really quick multiple inserts can use COPY? |