| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. |
| Date: | 2003-08-26 19:05:12 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.44.0308261502330.20304-100000@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> I'm still seeing differences in the planner estimates, have you run a VACUUM
> ANALYZE prior to running these tests?
>
I did. I shall retry that.. but the numbers (the cost estimates) are
pretty close on both. the actual times are very different.
> Also, are the disk subsystems in these 2 systems the same? You may be seeing
> some discrepancies in things spindle speed, U160 vs U320, throughput on
> specific RAID controlers, different blocksize, ect.
>
As I said in my first email IO isn't the problem here - the data set is
small enough that it is all cached (~10MB). iostat reports 0 activity on
the disks on both the sun and p2.
and I just ran teh test again with 40 clients: 730s for hte p2, 1100 for
the sun. (0% idle on both of them, no IO). I think the next I may try is
recompiling with a newer gcc.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-08-26 19:37:29 | Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. |
| Previous Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2003-08-26 19:01:55 | Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. |