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 CEAE911F620E for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:43:44 -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 27398-04 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:43:20 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from skunk.mtbrook.bozemanpass.com (unknown [69.145.82.195]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C333A11F60B1 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:43:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [69.145.82.249] (unknown [69.145.82.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by skunk.mtbrook.bozemanpass.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E59C55829A for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <444F870D.2000307@boreham.org> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:43:25 -0600 From: David Boreham User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs References: <20060425141435.6c8c163c.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <1145990018.23538.234.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <20060425183817.GA9241@mark.mielke.cc> <1145990551.23538.244.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <20060426005440.GA12711@mark.mielke.cc> <20060426011701.GB12711@mark.mielke.cc> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.245 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200604/602 X-Sequence-Number: 18686 >While in general there may not be that much of a % difference between the 2 chips, >there's a huge gap in Postgres. For whatever reason, Postgres likes Opterons. >Way more than Intel P4-architecture chips. It isn't only Postgres. I work on a number of other server applications that also run much faster on Opterons than the published benchmark figures would suggest they should. They're all compiled with gcc4, so possibly there's a compiler issue. I don't run Windows on any of our Opteron boxes so I can't easily compare using the MS compiler.