Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <itparanoia@gmail.com>) id 1THLKF-0006qM-VK
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:08:52 +0000
Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <itparanoia@gmail.com>) id 1THLKE-0006ev-6P
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:08:51 +0000
Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so2544900bkc.19
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
	bh=7d2MCa0IcAtuYjioOH2Qcc0gA2u/neAsvwD4knBQSkw=;
	b=qD//9HjM8hR6QBOAGGF7zz2yCm8JD/J53Cy06mj3MWCsz8Mt+1SirHx4INH8yOGffb
	0zY99F2DMsXxv19g5bk4VYKnNk9wCE6SjzZ0id6FRNjR6vNQLncMoqE5ELaMEdsmPcP7
	oIJPgdgf9pYiMd8rrY4LJAAz9AbIaU83l50KORlwf19kYbFua6sOHnQ5Zi1o98LT+DPZ
	LYnnvkPu21hsT+rSDQx2XAzkT4XIKhkuVsvYRu+WELFbpJ+DWLf9CnYZpsR0h45I2uwm
	Px+/ZfTSH+eUvFiKZ9Ft3yJ06ds/a+xjYvxiBG1gc3mBUjrW3N1EwnbBdzk94+WRQKXS
	c93A==
Received: by 10.112.11.4 with SMTP id m4mr2043193lbb.40.1348780128474;
	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.20.5] (37-144-24-89.broadband.corbina.ru.
	[37.144.24.89])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r5sm2028131lbz.2.2012.09.27.14.08.47
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\))
Subject: Re: hardware advice
From: Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5064BEA6.3000506@optionshouse.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:08:46 +0400
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>, "M. D." <lists@turnkey.bz>,
	Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>, <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FEEF9188-78D9-4725-8796-77FAA71AAE3F@gmail.com>
References: <5064A4DC.5090304@turnkey.bz>
	<CAFwQ8rf4Cnt9Ksd+3GbkkWtZ3NM+hYukd1gKRLmsihXnKzVteA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5064BB1E.4090904@turnkey.bz>
	<CAOR=d=02nGu3fMppkVZWeiDYOpWrXi1PT2ZSxx-fZ+Uxp2WuOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5064BEA6.3000506@optionshouse.com>
To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1498)
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201209/173
X-Sequence-Number: 47919

Hello,

from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1 on =
x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440.
I do not have x5690, but i have not so loaded e2660.=20

If you can give me a dump and some queries, i can bench them.

Nevertheless x5690 seems more efficient on single threaded workload than =
2660, unless you have many clients.=