| From: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | tony(at)exquisiteimages(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Architecting a database |
| Date: | 2010-06-30 18:18:33 |
| Message-ID: | 042F230C-09C9-45D0-98ED-01009721F1F8@silentmedia.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:12 AM, tony(at)exquisiteimages(dot)com wrote:
> I read a post
> earlier today that mentioned in passing that it was better to have a
> faster processor than more cores.
This really depends on your workload and how much you value latency vs. throughput. If you tend to have a lot of very simple queries, more cores => more throughput, and it may not matter much if your queries take 20ms or 30ms if you can be doing a dozen or two more of them concurrently in an AMD system than in an Intel one. On the other hand, if you have less clients, or more latency-sensitive clients, then fewer-but-faster cores is usually a win.
Either way, the amount of power you can get for your money is pretty impressive.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jignesh Shah | 2010-06-30 18:21:42 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
| Previous Message | tony | 2010-06-30 18:12:27 | Re: Architecting a database |