Subject: Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <44CE3023.3020402@tweakers.net>
References: <44CDFD44.8080307@multani.info>
	<b42b73150607310852o347833a1l5866681b9fbf0124@mail.gmail.com>
	<44CE3023.3020402@tweakers.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1154377665.6095.16.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:27:45 -0500

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 11:30, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 31-7-2006 17:52, Merlin Moncure wrote:

> For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main 
> bottleneck, are they? So you should probably go for a set of "fast 
> processors" from your favorite supplier and focus mainly on lots of 
> memory and fast disks. Whether that employs Opterons or Xeon Woodcrest 
> (no other Xeons are up to that competition, imho) doesn't really matter.

Just making a quick comment here.  While the CPU core itself nowadays
certainly is not the most common bottleneck for a fast db server, the
ability of the CPU/Memory combo to act as a datapump IS often a limit.

In that case, you want to go with whichever setup gives you the fastest
access to memory.