On 20 Feb 2008, at 19:26, Matt.Ingenthron at Sun.COM wrote: > Jyri Virkki wrote: >> Matt Ingenthron wrote: >> >>> I believe we'll need to deliver both, and there are probably still a >>> number of reasons (for now) that one may choose to run 32-bit even >>> on a >>> system with a 64-bit ISA, which means there has to be a switch >>> somewhere >>> to pick what one wants to run. >>> >> >> As you say, I doubt 64bit is universally always the right answer for >> every conceivable scenario, so there needs to be some sort of switch. >> >> So the question becomes what should be the out-of-box default. >> Barring >> compelling arguments otherwise, I'll always argue for consistency >> (which seems to be the direction the proposal is going). >> >> Peter mentioned better performance on x86 which may well be a >> compelling argument depending on the details. The db team should >> research this so there's enough data to declare it one way or the >> other. >> > > Agreed, and I apologize for hijacking this thread into a general > 32/64-bit concern in my last email. We should have some data to work > with, and from history with MySQL, I think this is available/easy to > obtain. Anything that is usually deployed in a read-mostly fashion > and > can have a large memory cache is pretty easy to make an argument for. > > Regarding consistency though, it could be entirely appropriate for > MySQL > to default to 64-bit on capable platforms, while other parts of the > stack deliver in 32-bit by default as they currently do, right?
See my last mail - but in short, no, I don't see any reason why not. > This is predicated on having data on which to base this decision > though. If somebody wants me to do any necessary tests with the various MySQL versions and SPARC/intel combinations with 32bit/64bit let me know. MC -- Martin 'MC' Brown, mc at mcslp.com Everything MCslp: http://planet.mcslp.com
