> 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
