From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Help specifying new machine |
Date: | 2004-08-19 16:18:31 |
Message-ID: | 200408190918.31797.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom,
> This is really interesting. We had previously seen some evidence that
> the Xeon sucks at running Postgres, but I thought that the issues only
> materialized with multiple CPUs (because what we were concerned about
> was the cost of transferring cache lines across CPUs). AFAICS this test
> is using single CPUs. Maybe there is more going on than we realized.
Aside from the fact that the Xeon architecture is a kludge?
Intel really screwed up the whole Xeon line through some bad architectural
decisions, and instead of starting over from scratch, "patched" the problem.
The result has been sub-optimal Xeon performance for the last two years.
This is why AMD is still alive. Better efficiency, lower cost.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-08-19 17:26:01 | using an index worst performances |
Previous Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2004-08-19 14:22:45 | Re: help with query |