From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fred Moyer <fred(at)redhotpenguin(dot)com> |
Cc: | 'Chris Field' <cfield(at)affinitysolutions(dot)com>, 'Ron Johnson' <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, 'PgSQL Performance ML' <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Value of Quad vs. Dual Processor machine |
Date: | 2003-11-12 08:42:54 |
Message-ID: | 3FB1F28E.702@myrealbox.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Fred Moyer wrote:
> One thing I learned after spending about a week comparing the Athlon (2
> ghz, 333 mhz frontside bus) and Xeon (2.4 ghz, 266 mhz frontside bus)
> platforms was that on average the select queries I was benchmarking ran
> 30% faster on the Athlon (this was with data cached in memory so may not
> apply to the larger data sets where I/O is the limiting factor.)
>
> I benchmarked against the Opteron 244 when it came out and it came in
> about the same as the Athlon (makes sense since both were 333 mhz
> memory). The results within +/- 5-10% that of the Athlon. From testing
> against a couple of other machines I noticed that the memory bus speeds
> were almost directly proportional to the query times under these
> conditions.
I remember a posting here about opteron, which essentially said, even if opteron
works on par with athlon under few clients, as load increases it scales more
than 50% better than athlons.
So that could be another shot at it.Sorry, no handy URL here.
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nick Fankhauser | 2003-11-12 13:34:50 | Seeking help with a query that takes too long |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-11-12 05:52:44 | Re: *very* slow query to summarize data for a month ... |