Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Date: 2006-04-25 19:12:20
Message-ID: 444E7494.1040900@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


> But don't believe me or the other people who've seen the difference. Go
> buy the Intel box. No skin off my back.

To be more detailed... AMD Opteron has some specific technical
advantages to their design over Intel when it comes to peforming for a
database. Specifically no front side bus :)

Also it is widely known and documented (just review the archives) that
AMD performs better then the equivelant Intel CPU, dollar for dollar.

Lastly it is also known that Dell frankly, sucks for PostgreSQL. Again,
check the archives.

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Weimer 2006-04-25 19:22:16 Re: ip address data type
Previous Message Sriram Dandapani 2006-04-25 18:52:19 Re: planner not using index for like operator