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 ABB649DC847 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:12:44 -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 70383-05 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:12:43 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.202]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142F09DC833 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:12:41 -0400 (AST) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 57so894702wri for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EjVMWUuno5Hx0f75RFl5qPPqh398NnWk322LHYVkfRL8gBvH2+zTMW/ZK6hqo+9jCBQsKUWjNA6VQ0WXgNfE5Qr7rmKO9Ns+LMpfa7LjvGSTXFk01afy3ZXbnUVKHNaWxiFCcKWVLa4TmimchIoY4wf3Hw9392xG6FsJHBFMSyM= Received: by 10.54.127.9 with SMTP id z9mr232237wrc; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.120.18 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <59d991c40512180912lf6d8455ydefb8aac54e8ac73@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:12:41 -0500 From: Christopher Petrilli To: Juan Casero Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1 Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <200512181135.15202.caseroj@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200512181135.15202.caseroj@comcast.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/441 X-Sequence-Number: 16262 On 12/18/05, Juan Casero wrote: > Can anyone tell me how well PostgreSQL 8.x performs on the new Sun Ultras= parc > T1 processor and architecture on Solaris 10? I have a custom built reta= il > sales reporting that I developed using PostgreSQL 7.48 and PHP on a Fedor= a > Core 3 intel box. I want to scale this application upwards to handle a > database that might grow to a 100 GB. Our company is green mission consc= ious > now so I was hoping I could use that to convince management to consider a= Sun > Ultrasparc T1 or T2 system provided that if I can get the best performanc= e > out of it on PostgreSQL. So will newer versions of PostgreSQL (8.1.x) be > able to take of advantage of the multiple cores on a T1 or T2? I canno= t > change the database and this will be a hard sell unless I can convince th= em > that the performance advantages are too good to pass up. The company is > moving in the Win32 direction and so I have to provide rock solid reasons= for > why I want to use Solaris Sparc on a T1 or T2 server for this database > application instead of Windows on SQL Server. I do not know that anyone outside pilot orgs have received their orders for the new T1 machines, so real world experience will not be available yet. The big question is whether or not it manages the processors only for threads (in which case Postgresql won't benefit much) or for processes as well. PostgreSQL takes a "process-parallel" approach to parallelism, not thread-level. There are lost of historical reasons, but, that's just hte way it is for now. Chris -- | Christopher Petrilli | petrilli@gmail.com