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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

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