Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: David LangDate: 2005-12-20 15:08:21
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1
Previous:From: David RousselDate: 2005-12-20 15:00:30
Subject: Re: 2 phase commit: performance implications?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group