| From: | Matt Clark <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
| Cc: | POSTGRES-PERFORMANCE <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: how much mem to give postgres? |
| Date: | 2004-10-20 18:16:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4176AB72.6040101@ymogen.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
><OT>
>Hyperthreading is actually an excellent architectural feature that
>can give significant performance gains when implemented well and used
>for an appropriate workload under a decently HT aware OS.
>
>IMO, typical RDBMS streams are not an obviously appropriate workload,
>Intel didn't implement it particularly well and I don't think there
>are any OSes that support it particularly well.
></OT>
>
>But don't write off using it in the future, when it's been improved
>at both the OS and the silicon levels.
>
>
>
You are quite right of course - unfortunately the current Intel
implementation meets nearly none of these criteria! As Rod Taylor
pointed out off-list, IBM's SMT implementation on the Power5 is vastly
superior. Though he's also just told me that Sun is beating IBM on
price/performance for his workload, so who knows how reliable a chap he
is... ;-)
M
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2004-10-20 18:39:22 | Re: how much mem to give postgres? |
| Previous Message | Steve Atkins | 2004-10-20 17:50:39 | Re: how much mem to give postgres? |