Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From mark@mark.mielke.cc
Subject Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Date
Msg-id 20060613021627.GA4682@mark.mielke.cc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
List pgsql-performance
I've been trying to track this stuff - in fact, I'll likely be
switching from AMD32 to AMD64 in the next few weeks.

I believe I have a handle on the + vs - of 64-bit. It makes sense that
full 64-bit would be slower. At an extreme it halfs the amount of
available memory or doubles the required memory bandwidth, depending
on the work load.

Has anybody taken a look at PostgreSQL to ensure that it uses 32-bit
integers instead of 64-bit integers where only 32-bit is necessary?
32-bit offsets instead of 64-bit pointers? This sort of thing?

I haven't. I'm meaning to take a look. Within registers, 64-bit should
be equal speed to 32-bit. Outside the registers, it would make sense
to only deal with the lower 32-bits where 32-bits is all that is
required.

Cheers,
mark

--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com     __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   |
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Next
From: "Alex Turner"
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?