Re: CPUs for new databases - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Carey
Subject Re: CPUs for new databases
Date
Msg-id 15C3CE0E-B25A-42AB-A618-DBB98A678AAF@richrelevance.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CPUs for new databases  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

>
> In addition to the memory issues, there's also thread CPU scheduling
> involved here.  Ideally the benchmark would pin each thread to a single
> core and keep it there for the runtime of the test, but it's not there
> yet.  I suspect one source of variation at odd numbers of threads
> involves processes that bounce between CPUs more than in the more even
> cases.
>

Depends on what you're interested in.

Postgres doesn't pin threads to processors.  Postgres doesn't use threads.  A STREAM benchmark that used multiple
processes,with half SYSV shared and half in-process memory access, would be better.   How the OS schedules the
processesand memory access is critical.  One server might score higher on an optimized 'pin the processes' STREAM test,
butbe slower in the real world for Postgres because its not testing anything that Postgres can do. 


> --
> Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support        www.2ndQuadrant.us
> "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: executor stats / page reclaims
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: problem with from_collapse_limit and joined views