Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Having to recompile to run on single- vs dual-processor machines doesn't
> > seem like it would fly.
> Oh, I don't know. Many applications require compiling for a target
> architecture; SQL Server, for example, won't use a 2nd processor without
> re-installation. I'm not sure about Oracle.
> It certainly wasn't too long ago that Linux gurus were esposing re-compiling
> the kernel for the machine.
> And it's not like they would *have* to re-compile to use PostgreSQL after
> adding an additional processor. Just if they wanted to maximize peformance
> Also, this is a fairly rare circumstance, I think; to judge by my clients,
> once a database server is in production nobody touches the hardware.
A much simpler solution would be for the postmaster to run a test during
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Pailloncy Jean-Gérard||Date: 2004-04-22 18:46:51|
|Subject: Re: 225 times slower |
|Previous:||From: Markus Bertheau||Date: 2004-04-22 18:20:47|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL vs PG TPC-H benchmarks|