5 messages in com.mysql.lists.packagersRe: -DBIG_JOINS| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Christian Hammers | 22 Jul 2004 14:35 | |
| Lenz Grimmer | 22 Jul 2004 16:33 | |
| Christian Hammers | 23 Jul 2004 09:37 | |
| Lenz Grimmer | 27 Jul 2004 01:19 | |
| Lenz Grimmer | 27 Jul 2004 01:21 |
| Subject: | Re: -DBIG_JOINS![]() |
|---|---|
| From: | Lenz Grimmer (le...@mysql.com) |
| Date: | 07/27/2004 01:21:51 AM |
| List: | com.mysql.lists.packagers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Christian Hammers wrote:
I've just got the hint to build my packages with this option. Looks good (enabling ~64 instead of ~32 tables in a join) but I wonder why it isn't the default. Are there major performance drawbacks?
Here is a reply I got:
[SNIP] On 32-bit systems both BIG_JOINS and BIG_TABLES end up using 64-bit integers instead of 32-bit ones.
That makes things slower.
How much ???
Depends on the queries ... 5 % ?? [SNIP]
So it's hard to tell - we have not yet benchmarked these two configurations against each other. It may make sense to enable this option for the "Max" binary only (as we do it) - if you have a "max" binary at all, that is.
Bye, LenZ - -- Lenz Grimmer <le...@mysql.com> Senior Production Engineer MySQL GmbH, http://www.mysql.de/ Hamburg, Germany -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/
iD8DBQFBBhC2SVDhKrJykfIRAolJAJ0Ukw8wsQJM+3jwOvg6YfF3HZJSJwCeKOyc 9x9+HCgdV7NTLEUt1HkazKU= =JuRK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




