"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree with Bruce and Tom.
AFAIK Bruce and Tom (and myself) agree that this is a good idea, provided it makes a noticeable performance difference (and if it doesn't, it's not worth applying). > AFAIK and in my experience I don't think it will be a significantly > measurable increase. Can you elaborate on this experience? > Not only that, but the portability issue itself tends to make it > less desireable. Well, that's obvious: code that improves PostgreSQL on *all* platforms is clearly superior to code that only improves it on a couple. That's not to say that the latter code is absolutely without merit, however. > Sorry if my comments are out-of-line on this one but it has been a > thread for some time I'm just kinda tired of reading theory vs > proof. Well, ISTM the easiest way to get some "proof" is to implement it and benchmark the results. IMHO any claims about performance prior to that are mostly hand waving. > Since you are so set on trying to implement this, I'm just wondering > what documentation has tested evidence of measurable increases in > similar situations? (/me wonders if people bother reading the threads they reply to) http://lwn.net/Articles/10293/ According to the HP guys, Oracle saw an 8% performance improvement in TPC-C when they started using large pages. To be perfectly honest, I really have no idea if that will translate into an 8% performance gain for PostgreSQL, or whether the performance gain only applies if you're using a machine with 16GB of RAM, or whether the speedup from large pages is really just a correction of some Oracle deficiency that we don't suffer from, etc. However, I do think it's worth finding out. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly