| From: | "Guido Neitzer" <guido(dot)neitzer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | "Arjen van der Meijden" <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>, "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, "Pgsql-Performance ((((E-mail))))" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" |
| Date: | 2006-09-23 13:00:31 |
| Message-ID: | fbbe50e0609230600q1c9750a8nd45eeefc5f786e4f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other "benchmarks"
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ... it just doesn't scale well.
cug
On 9/23/06, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
> Yep. From what I understand, Intel is 8 to 10 times the size of AMD.
>
> It's somewhat amazing that AMD even competes, and excellent for us, the
> consumer, that they compete well, ensuring that we get very fast
> computers, for amazingly low prices.
>
> But Intel isn't crashing down any time soon. Perhaps they became a little
> lazy, and made a few mistakes. AMD is forcing them to clean up.
>
> May the competition continue... :-)
>
> Cheers,
> mark
--
PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006
http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2006-09-23 13:16:50 | Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" |
| Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-09-23 12:19:42 | Re: Confusion and Questions about blocks read |