I would use a simple -xO2 or -xO3 instead as the default with
an -fsimple=2.
--Ken
-x02 -xbuiltin=%all
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:04:23PM -0400, Jeff wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>
> > Jeff,
> >
> > My first concern with the -fast option is that it makes an executable
> >
Jeff,
My first concern with the -fast option is that it makes an executable
that is specific for the platform on which the compilation is run
unless other flags are given. My second concern is the effect it has
on IEEE floating point behavior w.r.t. rounding, error handling,
And my third conc
Isn't it great how you have the same directory on every host so you can
download once and run the same tests easily.
Neil Conway wrote:
> $ uname -a
> Linux spe170 2.4.17-64 #1 Sat Mar 16 17:31:44 MST 2002 parisc64 unknown
> $ gcc --version
> 3.0.4
>
> 'make check' passes
I didn't know there w
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 21:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Agreed. Do we set them all to -O2, then remove it from the ones we
> don't get successful reports on?
I took the time to compile CVS tip with a few different machines from
HP's TestDrive program, to see if there were any regressions using the
ne
Christopher Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > 5) How can I compile for optimum performance?
> >
> > Try using the "-fast" compile flag. The binaries might not be portable to
> > other Solaris systems, and you might need to compile everything that links
> > to PostgreSQL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> 5) How can I compile for optimum performance?
>
> Try using the "-fast" compile flag. The binaries might not be portable to
> other Solaris systems, and you might need to compile everything that links
> to PostgreSQL with "-fast", but PostgreSQL will run
Jeff wrote:
> We're keeping the -O2 for gcc in the template and moving the mention of
> -fast to the FAQ, correct?
gcc gets -O2, non-gcc gets -O, and -fast is in the FAQ, yea.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
We're keeping the -O2 for gcc in the template and moving the mention of
-fast to the FAQ, correct?
--
Jeff Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list ar
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:04:23PM -0400, Jeff wrote:
> >
> > So you think we should leave PG alone and let it run horrifically slowly?
> > Do you have a better idea of how to do this?
>
> Given the point in the release cycle, mightn't the FAQ_Solaris or
> some other plac
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:04:23PM -0400, Jeff wrote:
>
> So you think we should leave PG alone and let it run horrifically slowly?
> Do you have a better idea of how to do this?
Given the point in the release cycle, mightn't the FAQ_Solaris or
some other place be better for this for now? I agre
Jeff wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>
> > Jeff,
> >
> > My first concern with the -fast option is that it makes an executable
> > that is specific for the platform on which the compilation is run
> > unless other flags are given. My second concern is the effect it has
> > on
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> My first concern with the -fast option is that it makes an executable
> that is specific for the platform on which the compilation is run
> unless other flags are given. My second concern is the effect it has
> on IEEE floating point behavior
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 52 seconds to 19-20 seconds
>
> Wow, that's dramatic. Do you want to propose some flags for non-gcc
> Solaris? Is -fast the only one? Is there one that suppresses those
> warnings or are they OK?
>
Well. As I said, I didn't see an obvious way to hid
Jeff wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > What is the performance win for the -fast flag again?
> >
> > ---
> >
> 52 seconds to 19-20 seconds
Wow, that's dramatic. Do you want to propose some flags for
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> What is the performance win for the -fast flag again?
>
> ---
>
52 seconds to 19-20 seconds
--
Jeff Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
What is the performance win for the -fast flag again?
---
Jeff wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > So you want -fast added as default for non-gcc Solaris? You mentioned
> > there is a warning genera
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> So you want -fast added as default for non-gcc Solaris? You mentioned
> there is a warning generated that we have to deal with?
>
Yeah, suncc generates a warning for _every_ file that says:
Warning: -xarch=native has been explicitly specified, or imp
So you want -fast added as default for non-gcc Solaris? You mentioned
there is a warning generated that we have to deal with?
---
Jeff wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> > Hey Jeff,
> >
> > On Wed, 2003-10
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> Hey Jeff,
>
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 11:46, Jeff wrote:
> > Yeah - like I expected it was able to generate much better code for
> > _bt_checkkeys which was the #1 function in gcc on both sun & linux.
>
> If you get a minute, would it be possible to compare t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 14:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Well, this is really embarassing. I can't imagine why we would not set
> >> at least -O on all platforms.
>
> I believe that autoconf will automatically select -O2 (when CFLAGS isn
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 14:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, this is really embarassing. I can't imagine why we would not set
>> at least -O on all platforms.
I believe that autoconf will automatically select -O2 (when CFLAGS isn't
already set) *if* it's ch
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff writes:
I'll go run the regression test suite with my gcc -O2 pg and the suncc pg.
See if they pass the test.
My default set of gcc optimization flags is:
-O3 -funroll-loops -frerun-cse-after-loop -frerun-loop-opt -falign-functions
-mcpu=i686 -march
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 14:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, this is really embarassing. I can't imagine why we would not set
> at least -O on all platforms.
ISTM the most legitimate reason for not enabling compilater
optimizations on a given compiler/OS/architecture combination is might
cause compi
Jeff wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> >
> > What CFLAGS does configure pick for gcc? From
> > src/backend/template/solaris, I'd guess it's not enabling any
> > optimization. Is that the case? If so, some gcc numbers with -O and -O2
> > would be useful.
> >
>
> I can't believe I
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> What CFLAGS does configure pick for gcc? From
> src/backend/template/solaris, I'd guess it's not enabling any
> optimization. Is that the case? If so, some gcc numbers with -O and -O2
> would be useful.
>
I can't believe I didn't think of this before! he
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 11:46, Jeff wrote:
> Yeah - like I expected it was able to generate much better code for
> _bt_checkkeys which was the #1 function in gcc on both sun & linux.
>
> and as you can see, suncc was just able to generate much nicer code.
What CFLAGS does configure pick for gcc? Fr
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 10:48, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> My worry about this test is that it gives us precious little
> knowledge about concurrent connection slowness, which is where I find
> the most significant problems.
As Jeff points out, the second set of results is for 20 concurrent
connections
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> Interesting (and surprising that the performance differential is that
> large, to me at least). Can you tell if the performance gain comes from
> an improvement in a particular subsystem? (i.e. could you get a profile
> of Sun/gcc and compare it with Sun/su
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> What is the query?
>
It retrieves an index listing for our boards. The boards are flat (not
threaded) and messages are numbered starting at 1 for each board.
If you pass in 0 for the start_from it assumes the latest 60.
And it should be noted - in some c
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> My worry about this test is that it gives us precious little
> knowledge about concurrent connection slowness, which is where I find
> the most significant problems. When we tried a Sunsoft cc vs gcc 2.95
> on Sol 7 about 1 1/2 years ago, we found more
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:36, Jeff wrote:
> So here's the results using my load tester (single connection per beater,
> repeats the query 1000 times with different input each time (we'll get
> ~20k rows back), the query is a common query around here.
What is the query?
> Linux - 1x - 35 seconds, 2
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 08:36:56AM -0400, Jeff wrote:
>
> So here's the results using my load tester (single connection per beater,
> repeats the query 1000 times with different input each time (we'll get
> ~20k rows back), the query is a common query around here.
My worry about this test is that
32 matches
Mail list logo
