Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Leigh Dyer <leigh(at)eclinic(dot)com(dot)au>, Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Date: 2006-06-13 04:34:07
Message-ID: 200606122134.07510.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Folks,

FWIW, the applications where I did direct 32 / 64 comparison were
a) several data warehouse tests, with databases > 100GB
b) computation-heavy applications (such as a complex calendaring app)

And, as others have pointed out, I wasn't comparing generics; I was comparing
Athalon/Xeon to Opteron. So it's quite possible that the improvements had
nothing to do with going 64-bit and were because of other architecture
improvements.

In which case, why was 64-bit such a big deal?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message J. Andrew Rogers 2006-06-13 06:00:38 Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Previous Message David Wheeler 2006-06-13 03:00:37 Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?