X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18139FA5BA for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 07:52:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53154-01 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 07:52:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F609FA311 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 07:52:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from trofast.sesse.net ([129.241.93.32]) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FmTjz-00025e-Av; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:52:23 +0200 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1FmTjz-0006hJ-00; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:52:23 +0200 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:52:23 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: fzied@planet.tn, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?UsOpcG9uZHJl?= Message-ID: <20060603105223.GB25615@uio.no> Reply-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-Followup-To: fzied@planet.tn, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <200606031038.k53AcAR3014059@smtp2.planet.net.tn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200606031038.k53AcAR3014059@smtp2.planet.net.tn> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.16trofastxen on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/21 X-Sequence-Number: 19378 On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 11:38:10AM +0100, fzied@planet.tn wrote: >> What version of PostgreSQL? (8.1 is better than 8.0 is much better than 7.4.) > 8.1.3 on RHEL 4 OK, that sounds good. >> Have you remembered to turn HT off? > no !! what is it ? HT = Hyperthreading. It usually does more harm than good on databases (although others have reported differing results). >> Have you considered Opterons instead of Xeons? (The Xeons generally >> scale bad with PostgreSQL.) > No can't have it OK, that's bad -- it's probably the single thing that could have helped performance the most. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/