Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
От | Michael Stone |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20061211173105.GH16692@mathom.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations (Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 12:15:51PM -0500, Ron wrote: >I'd say the fairest attitude is to do everything we can to support >having the proper experiments done w/o presuming the results. Who's presuming results?[1] It is fair to say that making extraordinary claims without any evidence should be discouraged. It's also fair to say that if there are specific things that need cpu-specific tuning they'll be fairly limited critical areas (e.g., locks) which would probably be better implemented with a hand-tuned code and runtime cpu detection than by magical mystical compiler invocations. Mike Stone [1] I will say that I have never seen a realistic benchmark of general code where the compiler flags made a statistically significant difference in the runtime. There are some particularly cpu-intensive codes, like some science simulations or encoding routines where they matter, but that's not the norm--and many of those algorithms already have hand-tuned versions which will outperform autogenerated code. You'd think that with all the talk that the users of certain OS's generate about CFLAG settings, there'd be some well-published numbers backing up the hype. At any rate if there were numbers to back the claim then I think they could certainly be considered without prejudice.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: