Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 402D7A0D.8030207@paradise.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Wouldn't you only care about 64-bit Postgres if you wanted to make shared_buffers bigger than 4G? Various other posters have commented about the sweet-spot for shared_buffers being ~ 100-200M (or thereabouts). So it seems to me that there is nothing to be gained using a 64-bit binary with the current or previous Pg releases. However, with the new cache replacement system being used in 7.5devel, the situation *may* be different (wonder if anyone has tried this out yet?). regards Mark Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:46:58PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote: > > >>Lots of people have been running it on 64 bit systems for _years_ now. >>The Digital Alpha architecture, for instance, was introduced in the >>1992, and Sun UltraSPARC in 1995. PostgreSQL has been running well on >>these sorts of systems for a lot of years now. >> >> > >But actually, there are problems with using postgres as a 64 bit >application on Solaris. It works, and it's reliable, but I've never >seen any evidence that it helps anything (and I've looked plenty). > >A > > >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: