Message-ID: <48ADCA78.2090605@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:05:12 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Volpato?=
 <andre.volpato@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres not using array
References: <48AC8292.5000708@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
	<48AD735D.6040403@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
	<23465.1219328880@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<48AD80FA.30100@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
	<29595.1219345818@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <29595.1219345818@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tom Lane escreveu:
>> We are guessing that a dual core 3.0GHz will beat up a quad core 2.2,
>> at least in this environmnent with less than 4 concurrent queryes.
>
> The most you could hope for from that is less than a 50% speedup.  I'd
> suggest investing some tuning effort first.  Some rethinking of your
> schema, for example, might buy you orders of magnitude ... with no new
> hardware investment.

I think we almost reached the tuning limit, without changing the schema.

You are right, the whole design must be rethinked.
But this question about single vs multi cores has bitten me.

We will rethink the investiment in new hardware too. The databases that a=
re
used less often will be managed to a single core server.

--=20

[]=B4s, ACV