On 31-7-2007 5:07 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Afaik Tom hadn't finished his patch when I was testing things, so I don't
know. But we're in the process of benchmarking a new system (dual quad-core
Xeon) and we'll have a look at how it performs in th
eckout (which
we'll call 8.3dev). I'll let you guys (or at least Tom) know how they
compare in our benchmark.
Best regards,
Arjen
On 18-5-2007 15:12 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Arjen van der Meijden told me that according to the tweakers.net
benchmark, HEAD is noticeably
On 22-6-2006 15:03, David Roussel wrote:
Sureky the 'perfect' line ought to be linear? If the performance was
perfectly linear, then the 'pages generated' ought to be G times the
number (virtual) processors, where G is the gradient of the graph. In
such a case the graph will go through the or
On 17-6-2006 1:24, Josh Berkus wrote:
Arjen,
I can already confirm very good scalability (with our workload) on
postgresql on that machine. We've been testing a 32thread/16G-version
and it shows near-linear scaling when enabling 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores
(with all four threads enabled).
Keen.
On 16-6-2006 17:18, Robert Lor wrote:
I think this system is well suited for PG scalability testing, among
others. We did an informal test using an internal OLTP benchmark and
noticed that PG can scale to around 8 CPUs. Would be really cool if all
32 virtual CPUs can be utilized!!!
I can al
For a more accurate view of the time used, use the \timing switch in psql.
That leaves out the overhead for forking and loading psql, connecting to
the database and such things.
I think, that it would be even nicer if postgresql automatically choose
to replace the count(*)-with-no-where with som
