Mea Culpa. There is a mistake in my example for SDR vs DDR vs DDR2.
This is what I get for posting before my morning coffee.
The base latency for all of the memory types is that of the base clock rate; 200MHz= 5ns in my given examples.
I double factored, making DDR and DDR2 worse than they actually are.
Again, my apologies.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Apr 26, 2006 8:40 AM
>To: mark@mark.mielke.cc, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
>
>I'm posting this to the entire performance list in the hopes that it will be generally useful.
>=r
<snip>
>
>Note also what happens when transferring the first datum after a lull period.
>For purposes of example, let's pretend that we are talking about a base clock rate of 200MHz= 5ns.
>
>The SDR still transfers data every 5ns no matter what.
>The DDR transfers the 1st datum in 10ns and then assuming there are at least 2 sequential datums to be >transferred
willtransfer the 2nd and subsequent sequential pieces of data every 2.5ns.
>The DDR2 transfers the 1st datum in 20ns and then assuming there are at least 4 sequential datums to be >transferred
willtransfer the 2nd and subsequent sequential pieces of data every 1.25ns.
>
=5= ns to first transfer in all 3 casess. Bad Ron. No Biscuit!
>
>Thus we can see that randomly accessing RAM degrades performance significantly for DDR and DDR2. We can >also see
thatthe conditions for optimal RAM performance become more restrictive as we go from SDR to DDR to >DDR2.
>The reason DDR2 with a low base clock rate excelled at tasks like streaming multimedia and stank at things like >small
transactionOLTP DB applications is now apparent.
>
>Factors like CPU prefetching and victim buffers can muddy this picture a bit.
>Also, if the CPU's off die IO is slower than the RAM it is talking to, how fast that RAM is becomes unimportant.
>
These statements, and everything else I posted, are accurate.
