<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Discussions on 32 bit vs 64 bit Postgresql:</font>
<br>
<br><a href="http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-11/msg00201.php"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-11/msg00201.php</font></a>
<br>
<br><a href="http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/64-bit-vs-32-bit-performance-backwards-td2057238.html"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/64-bit-vs-32-bit-performance-backwards-td2057238.html</font></a>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">See document on 5 steps to postgresql
performance by Josh Berkus:</font>
<br><a href="http://www.pgexperts.com/document.html?id=36"><font size=3><i>http://www.pgexperts.com/document.html?id=36</i>
</font></a>
<br><font size=3>"64 bit performance can be 5-20% faster"<br>
<br>
<br>
Doug<br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Doug Newcomb
<br>
USFWS<br>
Raleigh, NC<br>
919-856-4520 ext. 14 doug_newcomb@fws.gov<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the official
policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the Interior.
Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: postgis-users-bounces@postgis.refractions.net</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">02/04/2012 02:52 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
PostGIS Users Discussion <postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net></font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">PostGIS Users Discussion <postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [postgis-users] Rv: Postgis
for Postgres 64 bits</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>On 02/04/2012 01:14 PM, Darrel Maddy wrote:<br>
> Dear Regina,<br>
><br>
> I would be happy to contribute $100 into any fund which secures a
64-bit windows build of PostGIS2 -especially as I am about to install it
on a machine with 64Gb RAM :)<br>
><br>
> Count now at 1 ?<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
><br>
> Darrel<br>
> </font></tt><a href=http://www.ncl.ac.uk/gps/staff/profile/darrel.maddy#tab_profile><tt><font size=2>http://www.ncl.ac.uk/gps/staff/profile/darrel.maddy#tab_profile<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
I really wonder if its faster. I'd bet not. If you consider
the architecture, I'd bet, for all but the very largest of datasets, 32
bit PG running on top 64 bit os is faster.<br>
<br>
Consider: you want the os disk cache to be as large as possible. You
want a bunch of shared mem and I'd bet around 2 gig would be a sweet spot.
More shared mem wouldn't necessarily be a benefit. (There are upper
bounds recommended for shared_buffers, especially on windows).<br>
<br>
PG spawns a separate client for each connection, so each one of them could
access up to 2 gig. (so things like work_mem could be large).<br>
<br>
And last, 32bit programs are faster because they move less data around
(32bit pointers instead of 64bit).<br>
<br>
Taken all together PostMaster + (clients * postgres.exe) + os cache could
easly be more than 2 gig using 32 bit PG on 64 bit windows.<br>
<br>
The only benefit of using 64bit PG would be a larger shared mem. The
online manual says: "The useful range for shared_buffers on Windows
systems is generally from 64MB to 512MB"<br>
<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/runtime-config-resource.html"><tt><font size=2>http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/runtime-config-resource.html<br>
<br>
The best use of ram, is as a disk cache, which 64 bit windows should use
as much as possible (well, I assume). After that there is nothing
in Postgres (Per Client) that is going to run faster with more than 2 gig
of ram.<br>
<br>
Has anyone ever done any benchmarks?<br>
<br>
-Andy<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
postgis-users mailing list<br>
postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users"><tt><font size=2>http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users<br>
</font></tt></a></a></a>
<br>