From: Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
To: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Cc: Juan Casero <caseroj@comcast.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:01:52 -0500
Message-ID: <43A81CE0.7060805@rentec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43A7864D.1090400@sun.com>
References: <BB4329D6F8E32046ACFC6631ACA3E7BA18FC4B@koolancexeon.g2switchworks.com>
<200512191932.25699.caseroj@comcast.net>
<43A7864D.1090400@sun.com>
Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> I guess it depends on what you term as your metric for measurement.
> If it is just one query execution time .. It may not be the best on
> UltraSPARC T1.
> But if you have more than 8 complex queries running simultaneously,
> UltraSPARC T1 can do well compared comparatively provided the
> application can scale also along with it.
I just want to clarify one issue here. It's my understanding that the
8-core, 4 hardware thread (known as strands) system is seen as a 32 cpu
system by Solaris.
So, one could have up to 32 postgresql processes running in parallel on
the current systems (assuming the application can scale).
-- Alan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: stange@rentec.com, J.K.Shah@Sun.COM, caseroj@comcast.net
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1
In-Reply-To: <43A81CE0.7060805@rentec.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox