This is a discussion on CPU within the Pgsql General forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> is there much of a difference in performance between a XEON, dual core from intel and a dual core ...
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| is there much of a difference in performance between a XEON, dual core from intel and a dual core AMD 64 CPU? I need a bit of an upgrade and am not sure which, if any, have a significant advantage for postgres databases. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |
| |||
| On Monday 03 December 2007, Tom Allison wrote: > is there much of a difference in performance between a XEON, dual > core from intel and a dual core AMD 64 CPU? > > I need a bit of an upgrade and am not sure which, if any, have a > significant advantage for postgres databases. > Personally I've never seen postgresql suck majorly on CPU performance. I guess the biggest speed increase lies in ultra fast I/O, i.e. high spinning disks and battery backed hardware RAID. Databases tend to suck more on I/O than processor unless you do a lot fo sorting, distinct selects etc. Multi or single processor is just a matter of how many clients connect. AFAIK postgresql is not really multi-threaded, but runs each connection (master process) on one processor at a time. So if you have a quad core (or 4 processor machine), you'll have 4 postmasters "processing" any given time - the bottleneck again is I/O because usually all processors share the same ressources (memory and disks). So basically I would invest in fast I/O and would care less about the processors. More memory at hand may also be beneficial. U.C. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |
| |||
| Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: > On Monday 03 December 2007, Tom Allison wrote: >> is there much of a difference in performance between a XEON, dual >> core from intel and a dual core AMD 64 CPU? Well honestly, with how cheap you can get a quad core from Intel... I say do that dual core xeon will likely not be noticeable to a PostgreSQL installation (generally speaking). However, the two extra cores (even if slower), will greatly help if you have any kind of concurrency. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend |
| |||
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/03/07 21:27, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: >> On Monday 03 December 2007, Tom Allison wrote: >>> is there much of a difference in performance between a XEON, dual >>> core from intel and a dual core AMD 64 CPU? > > Well honestly, with how cheap you can get a quad core from Intel... I > say do that > dual core xeon will likely not be noticeable to a PostgreSQL > installation (generally speaking). > > However, the two extra cores (even if slower), will greatly help if you > have any kind of concurrency. Are there any heat/power considerations? An Opteron will most likely draw less power, generate less heat, be easier to cool and thus generate less noise. Of course, the heat and whine from those 10K and 15K SCSI drives will override any possible Opteron CPU fan quietness. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA %SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHVNgCS9HxQb37XmcRArgLAKCqTxy49KKaRy3P2UUqEy y6LJJKHACg0RDm 8TeEugJQYEGwyJ3nZBUWc9I= =LBD2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend |
| |||
| On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Well honestly, with how cheap you can get a quad core from Intel... I > say do that Exactly, the budget single processor configuration to beat in server land right now is the Xeon X3210. The frequency of the cores is a little on the low side, so individual queries won't run quite as fast as some of the dual-core alternatives, but when you get twice as many of them it's hard to complain. The X3220 is a little faster and more expensive. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend |
| ||||
| Josh, However, the two extra cores (even if slower), will greatly help if you > have any kind of concurrency. > as much as I understand with running Postgres in the default configuration, there *will* be concurrency, without an "if" ? I am thinking of the background writer, the autovacuum process, the log writer and finally the connection serving process. ... quite sure of that "default concurrency" because I had to explain those basic 5 postgres.exe to at least 8 Windows Admins... My non-benchmarked experience is that "multicore and postgres good" (experience mainly drawn from windows) Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - EuroPython 2008 will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania - Stay tuned! |