Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Magne Mæhre <Magne(dot)Mahre(at)sun(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm
Date: 2007-11-15 03:12:48
Message-ID: 473BB930.9080902@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> I've got one upstairs (HPPA), and I believe that it's actually a pretty
>> common situation in scientifically-oriented workstations from a few
>> years back.
>
> Last I checked, scientific workstations aren't exactly a common platform for
> PostgreSQL servers.
>
> The question is, for our most common platforms (like AMD and Intel) is the FPU
> notably slower/more contended than integer division? I'd the impression that
> it was, but my knowledge of chip architectures is liable to be out of date.
>
> Can we have a hardware geek speak up?
>

http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intspd.htm
http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/fpspeed.htm

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Atkins 2007-11-15 03:19:20 Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2007-11-15 02:57:18 Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm