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

Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1

From: Alan Stange <stange(at)rentec(dot)com>
To: David Lang <dlang(at)invendra(dot)net>
Cc: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Juan Casero <caseroj(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1
Date: 2005-12-20 15:14:44
Message-ID: 43A81FE4.7070308@rentec.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
David Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Alan Stange wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> note that like hyperthreading, the strands aren't full processors, 
> their efficiancy depends on how much other threads shareing the core 
> stall waiting for external things. 
Exactly.  

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2005-12-20 15:18:20
Subject: Re: High context switches occurring
Previous:From: David LangDate: 2005-12-20 15:08:21
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1

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