| From: | Alan Stange <stange(at)rentec(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Juan Casero <caseroj(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1 |
| Date: | 2005-12-20 15:01:52 |
| Message-ID: | 43A81CE0.7060805@rentec.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> I guess it depends on what you term as your metric for measurement.
> If it is just one query execution time .. It may not be the best on
> UltraSPARC T1.
> But if you have more than 8 complex queries running simultaneously,
> UltraSPARC T1 can do well compared comparatively provided the
> application can scale also along with it.
I just want to clarify one issue here. It's my understanding that the
8-core, 4 hardware thread (known as strands) system is seen as a 32 cpu
system by Solaris.
So, one could have up to 32 postgresql processes running in parallel on
the current systems (assuming the application can scale).
-- Alan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Lang | 2005-12-20 15:08:21 | Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1 |
| Previous Message | David Roussel | 2005-12-20 15:00:30 | Re: 2 phase commit: performance implications? |