Message-ID: <45019E3C.2010603@tweakers.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:45:48 +0200
From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
CC: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>,  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with
References: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net>
	<398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.com>
	<45016590.6050905@tweakers.net>
	<4D290F9E-240D-4F21-A182-8E193BEEA5CB@fastcrypt.com>
	<450193DB.7080104@tweakers.net> <450197EA.7040900@kaltenbrunner.cc>
In-Reply-To: <450197EA.7040900@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 8-9-2006 18:18 Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> 
> interesting - so this is a mostly CPU-bound benchmark ?
> Out of curiousity have you done any profiling on the databases under
> test to see where they are spending their time ?

Yeah, it is.

We didn't do any profiling.
We had a Sun-engineer visit us to see why MySQL performed so bad on the 
T2000 and he has done some profiling, but that is of course just a small 
and specific part of our total set of benchmarks.
Postgresql was mostly left out of that picture since it performed pretty 
well (although it may even do better with more tuning and profiling).

We are/were not interested enough in the profiling-part, since we just 
run the benchmark to see how fast each system is. Not really to see how 
fast each database is or why a database is faster on X or Y.

The latter is of course pretty interesting, but also requires quite a 
bit of knowledge of the internals and a bit of time to analyze the 
results...

Best regards,

Arjen