Re: Server recommendations
От | Ron Johnson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Server recommendations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1065446141.17599.73.camel@haggis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Server recommendations (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>) |
Ответы |
Re: Server recommendations
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 01:43, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > >>IMO they could be better machine for databases. Get a 64 bit linux kernel and > >>run 32 bit postgresql on it. Should work like a charm.. > > > > > > Why not run 64-bit PG on the 64-bit kernel? A bunch of distros > > are releasing support for the AMD64 this month. > > The best performance is by running 32 bit applications on 64 bit kernel/hardware > , according to a migration guide by HP. The reasoning is using space optimally Does HP have any AMD64 servers? > Imagine, if every long in pg is 8byte that would be waste most of the times. > However given a native 8 byte integer/float is available, there is no reason to > use a 8 byte data type unless required. From what I've read, longs are still 32-bit; it's only pointers that have upped to 64-bit. > Its about exploiting wide and fast bus of a 64bit machine in a most optimal > fashion. I think except for kernel and glibc, nothing else requires 64 bit in > general unless application insists on doing it's own caching. In PG's case, if the app uses BIGINT a lot, then 64-bit PG should be more efficient. Besides, in 64-bit mode, the compilers get to use 2x as many GP registers, which should increase performance. > Of course benchmarks have the last words..:-) As always. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: