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

Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"

From: "Guido Neitzer" <guido(dot)neitzer(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
Date: 2006-09-23 13:49:53
Message-ID: fbbe50e0609230649y2ca1cce4pc7a9b35540db95cd@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:

> 1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
> testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO

I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
more concurrent connections. The RAM might be, but I don't think so
too in this case as it represents exactly what we have seen in similar
tests. MySQL performs quite well on easy queries and not so much
concurrency. We don't have that case very often in my company ...  we
have at least ten to twenty connections to the db performing
statements. And we have some fairly complex statements running very
often.

Nevertheless - a benchmark is a benchmark. Nothing else. We prefer
PostgreSQL for other reasons then higher performance (which it has for
lots of situations).

cug

-- 
PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006
http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2006-09-23 14:19:34
Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
Previous:From: Dave CramerDate: 2006-09-23 13:16:50
Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"

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