Re: Caching by Postgres

From: PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com>
To: stange(at)rentec(dot)com, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc
Cc: "Donald Courtney" <Donald(dot)Courtney(at)sun(dot)com>, "William Yu" <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Caching by Postgres
Date: 2005-08-24 20:03:43
Message-ID: op.sv03chd0th1vuj@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> At least on Sparc processors, v8 and newer, any double precision math
> (including longs) is performed with a single instruction, just like for
> a 32 bit datum. Loads and stores of 8 byte datums are also handled via
> a single instruction. The urban myth that 64bit math is
> different/better on a 64 bit processor is just that; yes, some lower
> end processors would emulate/trap those instructions but that an
> implementation detail, not architecture. I believe that this is all
> true for other RISC processors as well.
>
> The 64bit API on UltraSparcs does bring along some extra FP registers
> IIRC.

It's very different on x86.
64-bit x86 like the Opteron has more registers, which are very scarce on
the base x86 (8 I think). This alone is very important. There are other
factors as well.

> Solaris, at least, provided support for far more than 4GB of physical
> memory on 32 bit kernels. A newer 64 bit kernel might be more
> efficient, but that's just because the time was taken to support large
> page sizes and more efficient data structures. It's nothing intrinsic
> to a 32 vs 64 bit kernel.

Well, on a large working set, a processor which can directly address more
than 4GB of memory will be a lot faster than one which can't, and has to
play with the MMU and paging units !

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lance Obermeyer 2005-08-24 20:10:37 Re: Read/Write block sizes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-08-24 20:00:45 Re: Some ideas for comment