Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADA79FA47B for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:17:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85372-10 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:16:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from net2.micro-automation.com (net2.micro-automation.com [64.7.141.29]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC2699FA430 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:16:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 31426 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2006 13:16:52 -0000 Received: from dcdsl.ebox.com (HELO ?192.168.1.2?) (davec@64.7.143.116) by net2.micro-automation.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2006 13:16:52 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <4513A59E.3000807@valuecare.nl> <45145AB7.70004@tweakers.net> <20060922223617.GA22923@mark.mielke.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <0ECF3B27-A4B2-46DA-A5C6-551BADB8F2ED@fastcrypt.com> Cc: "mark@mark.mielke.cc" , "Arjen van der Meijden" , "Vivek Khera" , "Pgsql-Performance ((((E-mail))))" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dave Cramer Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:16:50 -0400 To: Guido Neitzer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200609/318 X-Sequence-Number: 21004 On 23-Sep-06, at 9:00 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote: > 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 > Before you get too carried away with this benchmark, you should review the previous comments on this thread. Not that I don't agree, but lets put things in perspective. 1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO 2) The machines were not "equal" The AMD boxes did not have as much ram. DAVE > > On 9/23/06, mark@mark.mielke.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 > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend >