From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
Cc: | Philippe Rimbault <primbault(at)edd(dot)fr>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance on new 64bit server compared to my 32bit desktop |
Date: | 2010-08-27 17:25:08 |
Message-ID: | 4C77F4F4.4020900@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Carey wrote:
> But the select count(*) query, cached in RAM is 3x faster in one system than the other. The CPUs aren't 3x different performance wise. Something else may be wrong here.
>
> An individual Core2 Duo 2.93Ghz should be at most 50% faster than a 2.2Ghz Opteron for such a query. Unless there are some compile options that are set wrong. I would check the compile options.
>
Sure, it might be. But I've seen RAM on an Intel chip like the E7500
here (DDR3-1066 or better, around 10GB/s possible) run almost 3X as fast
as what you'll find paired with an Opteron 2427 (DDR2-800, closer to
3.5GB/s). Throw in the clock differences and there you go.
I've been wandering around for years warning that the older Opterons on
DDR2 running a single PostgreSQL process are dog slow compared to the
same thing on Intel. So that alone might actually be enough to account
for the difference. Ultimately the multi-processor stuff is what's more
important to most apps, though, which is why I was hinting to properly
run that instead.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-08-27 17:28:30 | Re: turn off caching for performance test |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-27 14:17:39 | Re: Slow Query |