Re: possible improvement between G4 and G5

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Qing Zhao <qzhao(at)quotefx(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: possible improvement between G4 and G5
Date: 2004-04-06 15:52:35
Message-ID: 20040406155235.GZ74840@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 01:47:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Qing Zhao <qzhao(at)quotefx(dot)net> writes:
> > We have got a G5 64-bit processor to replace an old G4 32-bit
> > processor. Given everything else equal, should we see a big
> > improvement on PG's performance?
>
> Nope. Database performance typically depends on disk performance first,
> and RAM size second. A 64-bit processor might help by allowing you to
> install more RAM, but you didn't say that you had.

Memory bandwidth is a consideration too, so you might see some
performance improvements on a G5. We recently debated between Xeons and
Opterons in a new PGSQL server and a little poking around on the lists
indicated that the Opterons did perform better, presumably due to the
increased memory bandwidth. Incidentally, this is why you need about 2x
the CPUs on Sun hardware vs RS6000 hardware for database stuff (and that
gets expensive if you're paying per CPU!).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant jim(at)nasby(dot)net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2004-04-06 16:22:49 Re: good pc but bad performance,why?
Previous Message Aaron Werman 2004-04-06 15:45:29 Re: possible improvement between G4 and G5