X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04AE9DCA67 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:14:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99827-02 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:14:54 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from unicorn.rentec.com (unicorn.rentec.com [216.223.240.9]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAF89DCA61 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:14:47 -0400 (AST) Received: from wren.rentec.com (wren.rentec.com [192.5.35.106]) by unicorn.rentec.com (8.13.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id jBKFEJXo025498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:14:20 -0500 (EST) X-Source: non-mednet Received: from [172.26.132.145] (hoopoe.rentec.com [172.26.132.145]) by wren.rentec.com (8.13.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id jBKFEWBO000162; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:14:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43A81FE4.7070308@rentec.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:14:44 -0500 From: Alan Stange Reply-To: stange@rentec.com Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.6a1 (X11/20051214) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Lang CC: "Jignesh K. Shah" , Juan Casero , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1 References: <200512191932.25699.caseroj@comcast.net> <43A7864D.1090400@sun.com> <43A81CE0.7060805@rentec.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Logged: Logged by unicorn.rentec.com as jBKFEJXo025498 at Tue Dec 20 10:14:20 2005 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.024 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024] X-Spam-Score: 0.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/493 X-Sequence-Number: 16314 David Lang wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Alan Stange wrote: > >> 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). > > note that like hyperthreading, the strands aren't full processors, > their efficiancy depends on how much other threads shareing the core > stall waiting for external things. Exactly.