Re: PostgreSQL HardWare
От | Steve Wolfe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL HardWare |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 005101c19563$c74d08e0$d281f6cc@iboats.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL HardWare ("SHELTON,MICHAEL (Non-HP-Boise,ex1)" <michael_shelton@non.hp.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
> In my last job we ran a multi-tiered online futures and options trading > system. Our database was originally on a 2 processor system. What was > interesting was when we ran tests we decided to try a single processor > system and found that the performance was only marginally (1-2%) better on > the 2 processor system. So for future upgrades we spent the extra cash on > the fastest single processor we could find rather than on 2 processors. We > never tested for 4 or more processors so I can't comment on the performance > issues there, but my 2 cents would be to spend the extra money on a faster > processor (if you even need to -- maybe save the money altogether!). Were you testing with a single process? Multiple processors under most all database systems don't really speed up the execution time of a single connection, but they let you run multiple connections simultaneously in parallel. I know that I can run a lot more concurrent postgres connections on a dual-cpu than a single-cpu machine, and the quad-cpu machine we use can handle a LOT of simultaneous traffic thrown it's way, and handle it quite quickly. In other words, it's not a matter of "I have a query that I want to run more quickly", it's "My goodness, there are a lot of people hitting the database" where multi-processors become just what the doctor ordered.... steve
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: